Whenever a politician, or anyone else, starts talking about regulating guns, it’s a safe bet that someone will bring up how Hitler supposedly outlawed guns in Germany, which supposedly enabled him to do all the mischief he did. As we’ve noted before, Adolf is a staple reference among propagandists. It’s become an automatic response to compare anyone you don’t like to Der Fuhrer, on the grounds that since he was evil incarnate, everything he ever said or did must also be evil. People have even been known to suggest that since he was a vegetarian, vegetarians are evil. It’s not surprising, then, that you often see this quote pop up:
“This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” –Adolf Hitler, 1935
Trouble is, Hitler never made such a speech in 1935. Nor is there any record that he ever spoke these particular words at all. This little “speech” was obviously written for him, many years after his death, by someone who wanted you to believe that gun registration is Hitler-evil.
What he did say, seven years later, was this:
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.” So it’s fair to conclude that he believed “gun control” had its uses. But that’s quite a different thing from claiming that “gun control” was instrumental in the Nazi rise to power.
And the truth is that no gun law was passed in Germany in 1935. There was no need for one, since a gun registration program was already in effect in Germany; it was enacted in 1928, five years before Hitler’s ascendancy. But that law did not “outlaw” guns, it just restricted their possession to individuals who were considered law-abiding citizens, and who had a reason to own one. And there’s no reason to consider that law particularly significant, either; the Nazis didn’t seize control of their own country with gunpowder. They used a much more potent weapon: propaganda.
Jews comprised less than one percent of the German population. Why didn’t the other 99 percent come to their defense and fight off Nazi tyranny? Quite simply, because they didn’t want to. They’d been persuaded that what was happening was best for their country, and that the Jews deserved what they got. It was propaganda, not firepower, that made the difference.
Under Nazi reign, Jews were prohibited from owning guns, just as they were prohibited from doing many things. And it has become an article of faith among the gun culture that had they been armed, the Holocaust would not have happened (that is, among those members of the gun culture who know that the Holocaust really did happen). But the concept of a handful of citizens armed with hunting rifles and Saturday night specials fending off an army is delusional hubris peculiar to gun addicts. On American soil, its most glorious day in the sun has been perhaps Waco. And we all know how well that turned out.
The gun culture is right about one thing, however. Hitler really did enact a new gun law. But it was in 1938, not 1935 – well after the Nazis already had the country in its iron grip. Furthermore, the new law in many ways LOOSENED gun restrictions. For example, it greatly expanded the numbers who were exempt, it lowered the legal age of possession from 20 to 18, and it completely lifted restriction on all guns except handguns, as well as on ammunition.
Given all of this, it’s pretty hard to make a case that “gun control” played a significant role in Nazi conquest. In fact, one might well say that when gun addicts brandish Hitler as a weapon, they are unwittingly arguing against their own cause.
(NOTE: Paragraph 5 of the above post was added after initial publication. For a more detailed discussion of this topic, see More on the Myth of Hitler’s Gun Ban, Part 1 and More on the Myth of Hitler’s Gun Ban, Part 2. Because the above post was deluged with comments, a few of them somehow were overlooked and did not get approved and published until later. Apologies to those who posted them. Comments on this article are now closed.)
**************************
If you enjoy the informed analysis of the Propaganda Professor blog, you can do your part to keep it going with a donation of any size.
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly
The Propaganda Professor 
In 1935, under Hitler’s rule, prayers ceased to be obligatory in schools. In 1962, The U.S. Supreme Court outlawed school prayer.
Hitler eliminated Christian holidays in the schools first by calling Christmas “Yuletide.” Most American public schools now call Christmas vacation a “winter break.”
Hitler took Easter out of schools and instead honored that time of year as the beginning of spring. It has likewise become common for schools in America to refer to time off at Easter as “spring break.”
Hitler controlled the church using intimidation and threats. A half-century ago, U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Baines Johnson, promoted a bill that included an amendment to use the Internal Revenue Service to remove the non-profit status of a church that speaks against the election of any specific political candidate.
Hitler enticed thousands of pastors to promote paganism in their congregations. Neopaganism is one of the fastest growing religions in America, doubling every 18 months according to a June 2008 article in The Denver Post. Many American church-goers practice paganism such as “Christian” yoga, contemplative prayer, and walking a labyrinth. As evidence that church doors continue to open further to aberrant beliefs, a 2008 survey found that 57% of evangelicals do not believe Jesus Christ is the only way to God.
Hitler was an environmentalist and vegetarian. Marriages performed by the Nazi state frequently included blessings of “Mother Earth” and “Father Sky.” Today Americans increasingly accept radical environmentalism, pantheism, and the celebration of Earth Day.
Hitler was fascinated by eastern mysticism. Today an increasing number of American pastors encourage their followers to become “mystic warriors”.
Hitler believed in reincarnation. He even convinced SS officers that by murdering millions of Jews and other “undesirables” they were allowing them to get on with the reincarnation process and come back more quickly in an advanced status. Americans increasingly accept the idea of reincarnation as well as good and bad karma.
Hitler’s holocaust killed between 8 and 11 million Jews and non-Jews. Americans have killed an estimated 50 million babies since abortion was legalized through the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973. According to a July 7, 2008 article on worldnetdaily.com “An abortionist who claims to have destroyed more than 20,000 unborn children and who once was Hillary Clinton’s OB-GYN says he is doing ‘God’s work’ when he terminates a pregnancy…He admits that abortion kills a human soul.”
Hitler killed 270,000 handicapped people through active euthanasia.[1] America and the courts are rushing toward the same with the murder of individuals such as Terri Schiavo. Oregon voters passed their Death with Dignity Act in 1994 and re-affirmed it in 1997. Washington state voters legalized doctor-assisted suicide on November 4, 2008. In December 2008, a Montana judge ruled terminally ill residents of that state have the right to physician-assisted suicide, and “death with dignity” is gaining acceptance in other states as well.
By 1938, all private schools were abolished by Hitler and all education placed under Nazi control. There is constant pressure from federal and many state education authorities to require that Christian schools use state-mandated, humanistic textbooks. The Home School Legal Defense Association is fighting numerous battles at any given time to prevent parents from loosing the right to educate their children as they see fit. In August 2008, a federal district court ruled that the state of California university system may choose not to recognize the diplomas-and thereby deny college entrance to-students who attended a school using textbooks that express a Biblical worldview in the areas of history and science (i.e., Christian schools). Hitler prevented dissenters from using radio to challenge his worldview. Many powerful liberals in America have made clear their intent to reintroduce the “Fairness Doctrine” that would require conservative and religious radio stations to offer equal time to anti-Christian, anti-conservative worldviews.
Pastors who spoke against Hitler’s worldview and his murderous regime found themselves on trial and frequently imprisoned for “Abuse of Pulpit.” In America, hate-crime legislation has the potential to criminalize Christians and pastors who speak out against the homosexual agenda.
Many Christians in Germany justified their allegiance to Hitler through a belief that “Their duty to God was spiritual; their duty to the state was political.”[2] Many American Christians now have bought the lie that their worldview can be divided between the secular and the sacred-the politician has one area of responsibility, the pastor another, and never shall the two meet. Yet the Bible teaches that all issues are fundamentally spiritual.
Hitler outlawed the cross and replaced it with the swastika. Today many churches, Christian colleges, and universities have willingly removed the cross from their buildings. Numerous court cases sponsored by the ACLU have required the removal of the cross from public grounds. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the Ten Commandments cannot be posted on public grounds for religious purposes.
Hitler was fascinated with Friedrich Nietzsche and distributed his writings to his inner circle. Nietzsche promoted Nihilism, the belief that life has no meaning, and he is best known for his position that “God is dead”. Nietzsche is presently one of the most widely read authors by American college students.
Hitler exploited the economic collapse of Germany to take over as dictator and usher in his brand of socialism. America’s financial crisis has given liberals in both political parties the opportunity to grow the size of government and implement freedom-robbing socialism at lightning speed.
Hitler was obsessed with globalism, and many of America’s most powerful political leaders are willing to subjugate American sovereignty to contemporary globalism.
Many Germans responded to Hitler by retreating into neutrality. Today most Americans prefer to remain neutral on moral issues that they think don’t affect them personally.
On trial after World War II, Hitler’s henchmen used the defense that they had not broken any laws. True, they had not defied the laws of Germany since those had been re-written to fit the goals and objectives of Hitler. The Nazi leaders were nevertheless found guilty because the courts at the time recognized a “law above the law.” Yet now the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the law of nature and nature’s God by claiming that as society evolves, morals evolve, and so the law, too, must evolve.
Calling upon Darwinian evolution, Hitler convinced the German people that purging millions of people was acceptable because of the need to create a pure race; also referred to as eugenics. American students across the board have been educated in Darwinian evolution because the Supreme Court has ruled that creation cannot be taught in our schools-even if both creation and evolution are taught side by side.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood in America became acquainted with the doctors and scientists that had worked with Nazi Germany’s eugenics program and had no quarrel with the euthanasia, sterilization, abortion, and infanticide programs of the early Reich.[3] Sanger even published several articles in Birth Control Review that reflected Hilter’s White Supremacist worldview. Planned Parenthood now grosses one billion per year.
In Germany, pastors often cited Romans 13:1-2 to encourage Christians to obey the Nazis. Today in America, many pastors have a false view of Romans 13:1-2 and have convinced millions that to disobey governing authorities is to disobey God. This poor training would facilitate Christians here doing just as the German Christians did if faced with similar challenges.
Germans accepted socialism to avoid pain. Today’s Americans are rejecting capitalism in exchange for government-sponsored “free” healthcare, education, and countless other government handouts.
Many Americans accept what I call, One World Spirituality. This is actually an amalgamation of the three worldviews of evolutionary humanism, Hindu pantheism, and occultism. I noted earlier that Hitler embraced all of these.
America is rushing toward government-sponsored, national healthcare. We already have a form of this in Medicare and Medicaid. Hitler, too, expanded and centralized Germany’s healthcare system. As Melchior Palyi explained, “The ill-famed Dr. Ley, boss of the Nazi labor front, did not fail to see that the social insurance system could be used for Nazi politics as a means of popular demagoguery, as a bastion of bureaucratic power, [and] as an instrument of regimentation.”
Holy crap. You appear to be a walking encyclopedia of misinformation. I won’t bother debunking all of this garbage here, as it would take a great deal of space, and most if not all of it will be addressed in my future posts, if they haven’t been addressed already. But your very first statement is quite typical of what follows it: your implication is that if prayers “ceased to be obligatory” under Hitler, that’s tantamount to “outlawing” prayer. But more important, you repeat the tired old myth that the U.S. Supreme Court itself “outlawed” prayer. Not so, of course. (http://voices.yahoo.com/legal-urban-legends-debunked-did-supreme-court-1951194.html) I truly feel a great deal of sympathy for anyone who believes ANY of the things you’ve said here – much less ALL of them!
In two landmark decisions, Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), the US Supreme Court established what is now the current prohibition on state-sponsored prayer in schools.
One needn’t even be familiar with such rulings to spot your straw man. First you talk about outlawing school prayer. Then you substitute a ban on “state-sponsored prayer” in schools. A gargantuan difference.
because a state will not sponsor it, does not mean you cannot pray in school.
If your teacher was a Muslim, and wanted to lead the class in a Muslim prayer, would you be so rabidly in support of that? Because chances are you wouldn’t. That’s why the state is not supposed to support any religion over another, so that people can make religious decisions for themselves privately. Religion is great individually, not so awesome when the state starts making decisions based on religious belief.
In this area of this thread, I don’t see any post from an Amy, but here is a link to a new video which is being shown on Facebook, and which was made by a responsible, ex-cop gun owner. It places some new perspective on the argument that insists taking responsible measures to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them, somehow infringes on our rights. Merely taking such common sense precautions can help prevent some gun crimes—perhaps not all of them—however the maker of this video asks why even helping in a small degree is not perfectly acceptable.
Surely basic laws used to ensure keeping guns out of the hands of those who might use them for harm, have nothing to do with big bad Obama wanting to control us all, like NRA tries to suggest, nor do they represent any Fascist control over our rights to self defense, as American citizens.
Here is a link to the eleven minute video:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/06/1428369/-Gun-owner-records-must-see-video-for-all-responsible-gun-owners
This is intended for the POP,
My first response was to Andrea and not Amy. However, that comment ended up near the very top of this thread instead of on the bottom. I also made two other comments to those currently commenting on The Myth of Hitler’s Gun Ban, but even though they were posted yesterday, I can’t see hide nor hair of them anywhere?
So firstly, did you see my comments, and why are some comments made in response to those who most recently posted near the bottom of the thread in what seems to be random areas of this thread? I’ve had this problem before, and unless you have not yet accepted my posts, I will probably need my tech support guys to reinstall google chrome.
If you want to delete this comment after responding, that’s fine.
Sorry Peter. I’ll crsck down on the gnomes.
On a thread with this topic, isn’t it more likely to be the Gremlins who are behind such hi-jinxs?
I’m having trouble sorting out which comments you’re referring to, Peter. There are nearly 900 of them on this post to sort through. If you could tell me the first words, and where they ended up and where they go, maybe I can relocate them properly. Have you comments all appeared now? Sometimes there is a backlog, but everything appears up-to-date at the moment.
Hi POP,
I’m having trouble remembering the screen names of those I made comments in response to. However I remember that they were engaged in an argument which was pro/con concerning whether Christians, were willing participants in Nazi Germany, or whether, one of these commenters only thought so, after having forming incorrect concept of what it means to be Christian. The Jest of my argument was that if anything, what happened in Nazi Germany, was indicative of the fact that any group of people, religious or otherwise, is susceptible to the hateful propaganda that is so often circulated by greedy and power hungry political leaders. Sorry I can’t remember more of the specifics.
I did notice this morning, that you have posted the recent reply I made to David Vasquez about what the 2nd Amendment implies, and whether the founders even considered that guns should be free of prudent regulations. But that one too, dated from October of this year was actually posted nearer the top of the thread rather than close to the bottom, where new comments have usually beem posted. Is this more dispersed and extended scope of the commenting area due to the extremely large numbers of them on this thread? It’s also hard for me to scroll through these almost 900 comments, in order to find the desired ones. In fact even when scrolling at top speed, it literally takes me several minutes to search from the top to the bottom, and at this speed, most of the actual comments appear as an incomprehensible blur of words.
I’m not sure yet what is going on. I think, however, that the problem is minimized when I am able to approve comments in a timely fashion rather than letting the pile up.
Thanks POP,
And I suppose the flurry of recent comments on one of your most controversial posts, is keeping you hopping in cyberspace. I appreciate your efforts.
Peter W. Johnson
Indeed environmentalism, paganism, evolution etc has been hijacked in the name of promoting nature above humans as a eugenicist control mechanism.
Anyone with an IQ over 50 that has looked into the facts knows that anthropogenic global warming is a complete scam with zero evidence to back it up and overwhelming evidence against it.
The globalists also want humanity to go vegetarian to weaken us. Meat promotes health, muscular strength, iron, aminos etc and is an important part of the diet, especially for the warrior caste. Yes some humans are born with strength and lots of fast twitch muscle, they are the ‘warriors and protectors’ if you will. The globalists want to undermine health/muscular development as much as possible in preparation for the future escalation of military interaction with the populace.
Vegetarians are also psychologically more predisposed to evil acts than meat eaters. They tend to eschew the animalistic vices, whereas meat eaters tend to be more sexual and animalistic, this mindset tends to go hand in hand with empathic animalistic kindness. People with fleshly vices like meat, sex, (and cigars.drink etc) tend to have the human empathic kind quality whereas the vegetarian clean-living types with no vices almost always tend to have one vice……..power.
This is not all vegetarians of course but a general tendency exists towards the afore-mentioned personality traits.
The globalist environmental anti-human religion gives the power hungry vegetarian types the chance to get some real power and have it pseudo-legitimised via the globalist ethos.
Please stop, my sides are absolutely splitting. Just mark me down as one of those vegetarian, environmentalist, evolutionist naturalists with an !Q below 50 who is very impressed by the mountain of solid “zero” evidence pointing to anthropogenic global warming. Oh, and I’ve also been an extremely healthy and active vegetarian for some 25 years, during which time I’ve seen my carnivorous friends and relatives drop like flies and develop a host of health problems. Wanna arm wrestle?
ok im a meat eater but i have to disagree with sabretruthiger, i have done research and ever time i look at the question of vegetarian vs meat eating i get meat is bad and so i looked for research to support and debunk it. i have found some of the most reputable clinics in the world doing research and they all same the same thing. National Institutes of Health-AARP says after a 10 yr study the find eating meat raises your chances of heart disease and cancer. also i did some research on anatomy and found by our very structure because we lack a protruding jaw we are actually designed to be vegetarians.
Genesis 9:4
But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Genesis 1:30
And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so
1 Corinthians 8:13
Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.
so i am inclined to disagree please dont be blind, do your homework, just an FYI i am a texan who is a conservative republican party supporter. so i am very anti liberal socialist agenda but i dont believe in propaganda to pass my ideas on, that is in fact what Adolf Hitler did
Ok, First of all, Genesis 9:4 is saying not to eat the blood. The blood is life and in order to eat the meat you must pour out the blood (Deuteronomy 12:23). Genesis 1:30 is before the first sin of man. In Genesis 9:3 God gives his blessing to Noah by saying “3Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” 1 Corinthians 8:13 is talking about eating the meat of sacrificial animals. The Bible isn’t a pick-n-pull of verses to suit your own propaganda. So I would recommend you do a little more of your own homework before dispelling someone else’s argument.
You get the myth “Meat is bad” because that’s what the vegans want you to believe, meat is very important to our lives, excess of it is not.
I just love how people pull from the Bible what they want to meet the evil deeds in the end. You’re a dumbass and have no clue what the Bible says. Let me share something with you…God says don’t eat/drink the blood of an animal. You are suppose to slit the throat and then hang it for it to drain. Why do you think meat lockers are full of animals hanging from hooks? So Rocky can use them for punching bags? Get educated please.
I’ll just add a bit about vegetarianism. I have worked in fish processing. 112 hours a week for a season, until downtime, which could be 6 weeks or a month. I found that if the processor had a weight room onboard, I could keep my energy up by riding a stationary bike for an hour and lifting weights another hour. Meat slows you down. I switched to a veggie diet. I would eat a big mess of eggs and hashbrowns for my first meal, but no other meat. You can go without protein for a good long time. After a month or 2 I had my wife send me protein powder. But when you habitually eat meat then stop, you’ll find that protein keeps you fat. The workers who ate meat (everybody) were always tired and pissed off. A lot of them quit. I ate some meat 8 weeks into it. That shift, my joints and muscles were very sore. All I could think about was quitting. It took me four or so hours to work off the feeling. Also I had to drink more water than usual to process the meat I had just eaten, and I had to go to the bathroom a lot that shift. That isn’t good when you are trying not to get fired or sent to the slime line. Everyone thought I was crazy, because I was always “up” and smiling (I also had a bitchin’ physique). I outworked everyone around me and was very gung-ho. When I worked these crazy jobs, I would also cut out the coffee. I switched to tea, and drank a lot of Emergen-C and water, and I also took fiber pills and fish oil pills. I got to a point where I could lose a pound of weight per hour on the cardio in the weight room. Just something to think about–it’s my personal experience. If you work a lot and want to be really strong, you will minimize meat consumption. (I was in the navy too, went to a war, have an “E” ribbon for the .45 and Marksman for the M14 and M16. So spare me this bullcrap about a “warrior caste.” We are not a caste society (on paper, anyway!) We may honor the troops, but it’s not a free-thinker or American trait to fetishize them. God gave you the gift of a brain, you should look into using it. Also, someone who believes we have, or should have, a “warrior caste” is expressing an “anti-American” sentiment. So is someone who says something is “unAmerican” to describe free people. There’s no such thing as “unAmerican.” There is, however, such a thing as “Anti-American.” Like POP says, read the Federalist Papers. You might also want to check out some different books, other than Massad Ayoob or Soldier of Fortune.
P.O.P: I wish I knew who in person. From what I read here, I’m a big fan!
Hi, in response to concernedonlooker (not certain he/she will ever see this). I just wanted to correct your references. All three of your references from the bible were taken incorrectly, though I am grateful you were making an attempt.
First you reference Genesis 9:4 & what is being discussed here is that they were to not eat of anything living. Basically, if the animal’s heart was beating, they were to not eat of it.
Then you reference Genesis 1:30, and you are correct that at that time, they were given every green plant for food (at that time).
Lastly, you reference 1 Corinthians 8:13. In those days, Jews followed a certain law and they had restrictive diets that other cultures or people groups did not. So, here, Paul is telling his brothers in Christ to not partake in something that might hinder another brother’s walk. For instance, there are some who believe that all consumption of alcohol is wrong, so I would not ask them to consume with me and cause them to stumble. Nor would I discuss sex amidst those who are unmarried, lest I cause them to stumble. Here, he is specifically discussing meat as a stumbling block. To sum it up, we are not to provide a temptation for others.
I also wanted to offer a reference of my own from Genesis 9:3 “Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” This is following the flood. At this point, God offers everything that lives and moves for food to mankind.
I do believe that our bodies were originally intended for plants and not animals, but for whatever reason, be it the fact that we were now descending from Noah’s heritage and maybe he lacked the genes for a vegan only diet, God gave us all that lived and moved as our nourishment from the flood on.
Just thought I would help anyone who was wondering about where all of this came from. Thank you again concernedonlooker for trying to point everyone back to the Bible. It is a great place to look for answers!
God, I am so tired of you people. I wish all of you would just take your fundamentalist, gun-fetishist, right-wing paranoia and just go start your revolution already. Then we could be done with you.
Oh for Pete’s sake, if you’re gonna cite the Schempp decision, at least do the research and get your facts straight. Schempp was an ordained minister, who filed the suit because he felt that the public schools were interfering with the religious education he was trying to give his kids.
I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember the school prayer that you’re talking about, but it wasn’t a simple “God is great, God is good, and we thank him for our food” at the beginning of the day, at least it wasn’t where I grew up. In New Jersey it was like a little mini-service. You did the Pledge of Allegiance, a “flag song,” a reading from one of the Psalms (probably the 23rd), and then The Lord’s prayer. Now I was seven when all of this just quietly disappeared, so my memories are a little fuzzy on this, and there may have been more. But if you were Catholic it was the wrong version of The Lord’s Prayer, and if you were Jewish, you were screwed. It may have been a lot different and a lot more intense in Maryland, which is where I believe Schempp was.
Moreover, when the Schempp kids asked to be excused from the room during those exercises, they were regularly bullied and beaten up by the “good Christian kids” for being different.
Knowing that the suit was brought by a Christian sheds a whole different light on the case and the resulting decision.
Did you read the book “History through Obama’s eyes”?
Funny thing is, anyone who hasn’t actually seen through Obama’s eyes can really describe what he feels and sees. Its easy to speculate according to preconceived bias, but more difficult to see past all the propaganda about someone who has really not done anything wrong, or uniquely attributable to Obama’s own presidency.
What I don’t get is why he says “gun addicts” and why he doesn’t clearly state who he’s referring when he says “gun addicts”.
The gun control argument isn’t about a gun addiction, it’s about our right to own arms for the protection of ourselves, our family, our land, and our country from tyranny.
The only thing I know that has a gun addiction is our own government; spending $4 trillion a year on our military, we outspend the world. Meanwhile, mass murder with weapons our government supplies to the FSA (Free Syrian Army) is underway in the Middle East and we all sit back and watch the next episode of Jersey Shore and American Idol.
P.O.P. I can’t agree more with you on your statements, the person above must have gone to a school of socialism and communism. Wake Up and get a Clue.
No, I see a snowball affect…. it starts with one thing than another than another…
@Patrick wasn’t even being original. He copied-and-pasted that verbatim from a screed that has appeared on numerous right-wing and Christocratic blogs, entitled “26 Similarities Between America and Nazi Germany.” It is, of course, more accurately entitled “26 Things the Original Author Made Up to Libel and Demonize Things S/He Hates About Modern America by Falsely Linking Them to Nazi Germany.”
Oh, and for the record, that quote you included in your blog post about not allowing subject peoples to bear arms comes from Hitler’s Table Talk which is of dubious veracity at best. It’s what one man claimed to have heard Hitler say in alleged private conversations at private dinners (much of which completely contradicts what we know he said, wrote, and did). Nearly all of the “Hitler was a Christianity-hating atheist” quotes that aren’t just plain made up come from that book.
Great article, alot to think about. In the case of the holocaust I agree the gun issue would not have mattered for several reasons. First the depression and affording the amount of guns and ammo needed. Second the propaganda Hitler had of reasoning that one group of people were the cause of all their problems. After a given time nothing could have stopped what was in motion until it became a world war with all other countries not overthrown by Hitler to take him down..
But….. The hypothetical reasonings of what ifs… What if Hitler didn’t choose propaganda? So no one truly could say what would or would not have happened
It is also questionable about other Hitler superstitious decisions not to build certain technology whether or not the Nazis won.
The basis of this article was to debunk defending gun ownership without restrictions.
We have to “think” about the founding fathers intent behind the 2nd ammendment and why it is the 2nd one.
I am not a gun owner nor a NRA supporter. I don’t have an issue with people owning guns for any reason except for taking out people for their own selfish purposes or to commit any type of crime whether they actually shoot or not.
The era of the birth of America was to be free on our own as a sovereign nation or to continue with the tyranny of King George. We had no say in our overall government. So first ammendment freedom of speech. We can point out what we see wrong without prosecution from the government.
The 2nd to defend our nation from foreign and domestic enemies.
Too much restriction on law abiding citizens ties our hands from defending ourselves if necessary with guns if that would have been our chouce of weapon.
It does NOTHING to stop anyone from committing crimes against us or our nation.
The point of gun control is not to control or abolish law abiding citizens. They obey the law.
But I have to agree that the first steps of totalitarian or dictator government IS to disarm the masses. Hitler just happened to take advantage of people’s hard economic times and turn people against a different group of people. He didn’t need to disarm them.
Patrick,
Regarding Hitler and religion, it’s difficult to believe that Hitler was pushing any kind of (new) religiosity (or “paganism”) when he is making public speeches where he says things like this below to his followers who supposedly are hanging on his every word:
“National Socialism is not a cult-movement – a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship. Therefore we have no rooms for worship, but only halls for the people – no open spaces for worship, but spaces for assemblies and parades. We have no religious retreats, but arenas for sports and playing-fields, and the characteristic feature of our places of assembly is not the mystical gloom of a cathedral, but the brightness and light of a room or hall which combines beauty with fitness for its purpose. In these halls no acts of worship are celebrated, they are exclusively devoted to gatherings of the people of the kind which we have come to know in the course of our long struggle; to such gatherings we have become accustomed and we wish to maintain them. We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else – in any case, something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our program there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will – not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord.
There were times when a half-light was the necessary condition for the effectiveness of certain teachings: we live in an age when light is for us the fundamental condition of successful action. It will be a sorry day when through the stealing in of obscure mystic elements the Movement or the State itself issues obscure commissions…. It is even dangerous to issue any commission for a so-called place of worship, for with the building will arise the necessity for thinking out so-called religious recreations or religious rites, which have nothing to do with National Socialism. Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men: it is to these we pay our respect. Our commandment is the courageous fulfillment of the duties arising from those laws. But for religious rites we are not the authorities, but the churches! If anyone should believe that these tasks of ours are not enough for him, that they do not correspond with his convictions, then it is for him to prove that God desires to use him to change things for the better. In no event can National Socialism or the National Socialist State give to German art other tasks than those which accord with our view of the world.” – Nuremberg Sept. 6, 1938
It sounds pretty secular, something like “If you want spirituality, go to church.”
Did it ever occur to you that Christ was apolitical, saying, “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. He also commanded his disciples to spread the Gospel, and would you believe it? They thought that gatherings of believers were an ideal way to spread the Gospels! So now you are minimizing secular thinking because it expects believers to attend churches as the preferred way to absorb spiritual teachings. That’s a good one–almost as good as believing we have a “God given right to own guns.”
Whatever mystical beliefs Hitler may have had, it does not follow to conclude either that he sincerely understood them, or that none of them have any meaning because of his interests in them. It seem to me that he was also often seen around guns–sounds a little NRA to me!
What a bunch of garbage. Whoever you get your information from should have been in Hitler’s propaganda machine.
Hitler farted on a Tuesday in 1935. Obama farted on a Wednesday in 2010. One must be the reincarnation of the other.
This is quite honestly one of the best comments this post has received yet.
But did they save Hitler’s fart in a jar and store it alongside his brain? 😉
‘Merica fuck yeah!
Thank you for saying that, I had several similar analogies running through my head but your’s is far better. Only thing I regret is the 5 minutes of my life I wasted reading that first comment. P.O.P. I’d like the IQ points back that he took from me for having read that (I’m really not sure what to call it).
Hitler was a Christian. A Catholic. He used his faith to propel himself to power. Don’t believe the tripe they’re giving you, buddy.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
Hitler may have been a ‘christian’ according to man’s definition of what a ‘chrisitian’ is… but his ‘fruit’ says otherwise… murder of millions of people… thru death camps, firiing squads…? christian? NOT! ANTI CHRIST? oh most definately… a mere shadowing of the man that will come on the scene in the future… only thing.. this man will do it thru ‘peace’.. unlike Hitler.. who did it thru war… so Hitler being a ‘christian’… NOT… Jesus said you would ‘know them by their fruits’…
Are you suggesting that Christians have never slaughtered anyone?
More deeds that Hitler did:
Hitler demanded the teaching of Christianity in German public schools. If you looked at a Nazi belt buckle, “Gott mitt uns” (God with us) was engraved on it. While this was already in place, he did nothing to remove it.
Hitler outlawed atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany in the Spring of 1933. In May, he closed Freethinkers Hall in Berlin and gave it to Berlin Protestant church authorities for use in outreach to non churchgoers. Hardly the actions of someone promoting atheism.
In [the] Freethinkers Hall, which before the Nazi resurgence, was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice on church matters. Its chief object is to win back former church goers and assist those who had not belonged to any religious congregation obtaining church”
Hitler was a devote Catholic, an alter boy in his youth and there are almost 100 passages in Mein Kampf where he professes his Christianity.
What is obvious has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ–very few of us can picture him goose stepping and preaching a concept like the supposed Aryan master race. What is really at work here is the fact that human beings, religious or not, are all to susceptible to the vile charms of propaganda, especially when used by charismatic and repressive political figures who have a deadly talent for convincing anyone—secular or non-secular, that he is the leader who will keep them safe and prosperous.
It’s safe to say, that he essence of Christianity has nothing to do with ethnic hatred, war crimes, genocide or ruthless forms of torture, but unfortunately self described Christians are also capable of using their religion to rationalize any kind of ungodly ideas they would like.
Personally I see the present domination and power hungry tactics of the GOP, (held hostage to the Tea Party), as responsible for 100% of our government’s gridlock. It seems that they are promoting the idea that, any ideas don’t need to be deterred by the facts and, would rather make them up instead—relentlessly bolstered by astronomical funding from billionaires to the point where they have actually been able to convince the middle class to vote against its own best interests. Whether these “worm tongues” (a reference to Lord of The Rings), slither out of political ideologies or from under rocks of religious rationalizations, the effect is the same, and is fundamentally describable by the term Fascist!
Lets not forget Pope Pius XII who actually helped Hitler through his inaction. Pope Pius stood by and watched from Vatican City as the Germans rounded up the Jews. Christian?
P.O.P., everyone sins, except Christ, of course, though He was tempted to sin (in every way that we, too, are tempted), and did not, in order that we could all be made righteous through Him. So, yes, it is possible that one may have committed the sin of murder (all sins are equal, by the way) and still be/become a believer in Christ. However, what Travis is trying to say is that those who do so (slaughter another human being) in the “Name of Christ” are not truly a follower of Christ and if they were to pass away before casting their sins at the feet of Christ and trusting that God/Christ is the only one who can forgive them of their sins, then they would not find a home with Christ.
So, to sum it up, there are many who say they do things in the “Name of Christ”, but if what they are doing contradict what the Bible says, then you can count on the fact that they are certainly wrong.
Christians do sin, they are not a perfect being, however, you have to look at their life and determine whether they are living in sin (a continuous struggle that they do not give to Christ), or if their life is lived more abundantly in Christ with some hiccups along the road. If they are living in sin and do not bear the resemblance of Christ, they are more than likely not “Christians”.
It is very sad because many have been fooled by the enemy to believe that they are “Christians”, when, in fact, they have no more put their trust in Christ than I have in the weather man.
Hope this helps to differentiate.
Christians throughout history have shed oceans of blood in the name of Christ. If you choose not to call them true Christians, that’s your right. When they call themselves Christians, however, I don’t feel the need to dispute them.
P.O.P., please refer to my other posts found under your response to Patrick on May 17th 2012 at 7:34pm & also under Ken’s post on January 10, 2013 at 6:43pm. I am certain I am not doing this much justice, but I thought I would at least shed some light on the truth from the source of Christianity (the Bible, not me, clearly). And yes, it is not up to us who is truly a believer, but, if the question is going to be asked about what “makes” (using the quoted term loosely) a Christian, then we might as well get it from the source.
“murder of millions of people… thru death camps, firiing squads…? christian? ” This actually sounds pretty Christian
Most Christians forget that god order the wholesale slaughter of the Canaanites via Joshua. It’s the same god that the Christians think is all loving. Well he’s a mass murderer. Sorry, it’s in your book.
My father taught me that God only chooses war as a last resort: if can’t keep those who choose evil form wiping out those who believe in Him any other way.
God had Joshua do this because these the Canaanites were living in evil. I were no doubt influencing those who were not. Our God is all Loving and He has a plan in everything that He does. And for those who believe that God does this just cuz “It’s fun” are going to have a rude awakening one day.
If Hitler used the Catholic Church as a means to power, that is probably the reason why–because it helped catapulted him to power by providing a deceptive legitimacy to his views.
I have my own theological opinions, but I understand that just because someone claims to be Christian, that doesn’t mean that person really try to live a spiritual life. And whats more, is that many who genuinely consider themselves to be Christians do not always act in the most loving way to their fellow human beings. And by this I am including those of fundamentalist faiths.
The reason that we must not have a state approved or instituted religion, is not just to prevent the “wrong” faiths from being granted special status, it is also to prevent any faith from being exclusively used to justify the narrow minded opinion that any person who practices one specific faith, automatically has a monopoly on absolute truth. Those who believe so, are useless to argue with if they start with the assumption that they ” know it all.”
The Bible is a piece of literature with many beautiful and wise passages in it but that does not grant everything in it, the special status of being infallible knowledge. A case in point can be found in Exodus Chapter 31 verse 14–“You shall keep the Sabbath because it is Holy to you; Everyone who profanes it will be put to death.” And before anyone brings up theological hair splittings such as “It only means after death.” or, “it only means spiritual death without faith” etc, consider a phrase from the next verse (verse 15)–“Whoever Does work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.” Not only does this mean that if everything in the Bible is absolutely true, then we are committing crimes punishable by death whenever we mow the lawn on Sunday, or even Saturday, if you go the Orthodox route. and the words, “put to” death, definitely convey an air that human enforcement will police this transgression.
So obviously if you believe every word said there, then you would consider trying, and executing, anyone who raked the leaves on the Sabbath–but of course that is absolutely absurd!
Jesus himself said, when asked about the holiness of the Sabbath, “The Sabbath was made for man–not man for the Sabbath.” And this is definitely NOT at all the same sentiment.
I get tired of so many people who think that their particular faiths are completely infallible and the other guys aren’t. What seems more reasonable to me, it that the basic core teachings of most major faith are the same (in so many words) love God and love your neighbor as you love yourself.”
I wish that religious fundamentalists who moan and fret about a society that should be based on religious faith—at least in the sense that Christians should be able to use any public venue desired to spread their beliefs, would realize how undemocratic it is to say, that free speech exists, but only my version i.e. my religion’s teachings are the right one!
It is far more likely that biblical injunctions against homosexuality and other examples of “abnormal” behavior come primarily from the aversion straight people have always felt towards a sexual orientation that seems so aberrant to them. Besides, it is obviously not true that some people chose to be that way out of some kind of sacrilegious defiance. This is no more true than that those who are very straight had to make a decision to be hetero. Both orientations are found in Nature and, therefore, under most religious doctrines must have been created by God.
The Bible has many wonderful passages and serves as a great source of love and inspiration to many of us. But every word ever written in it is not divinely ordained by God. I suspect human fault is responsible for many of the more questionable passages. If you disagree, turn yourself in to authorities next time you mow your lawn. Or admit that even the Taliban must have it right to believe in One True Way!
That also goes for any other major faith which negates or minimizes all the ethical content of faiths other than those believed by themselves!
I don’t expect all comenters to understand, but I am sure some of them will know what I mean!
Ha, he used it because Catholic and Lutherans were the popular religions in Germany… after he got into power he began secularizing his Nation.
Patrick, you are an idiot.
You are as full of Crap as a Christmas turkey. My mother attended Catholic School in Germany until 1944. I have pictures of her with the Nuns. Hitler had an agreement with the Catholic Church called the Condordat. He instituted a TAX that all must pay to the Church regardless of wether one atteneded or not. My made belonging to a Religious institution obligatory. HE himself was a Catholic. I dont know where you are getting your lies but they are lies nonetheless.
what terrorist faction has killed more cultures than the catholic church (in GOD’s name)?????
I’m pretty sure the Muslims have far surpassed the Catholics by now. In fact I’m pretty sure the Muslims killed more people last year than all people killed by the entire Inquisition.
As far as Muslims being bloodier than anyone else, let’s see some figures. Because in some places Christians are now killing Muslims.
Just a throw out there to EVERYONE. Don’t be gullible, please. If you believe it anytime someone says “I’m a “Christian” than your as gullible as the people that committed suicide when the “War of the Worlds” aired on the radio Oct. 30, 1938. As has been stated several times before, you HAVE to look at the fruits. I can say I’m President of the United States, but without proof no one would believe me. “Fruits” are proof you could say. Not trying to be overly harsh, I’m not one with words, and it seemed like one of the only ways of saying it.
Snivel, whine. What, 2000 years of ruling the world, during which you started wars, killed heretics, and burned lonely old widows at the stake wasn’t good enough for you? All we ask is that you show other religions some measure of respect and not pretend that yours is the only faith in this country. That’s not anything like the mass murder Christians historically perpetrated against anyone who didn’t follow along. Get over yourselves… seriously.
You know, you look hard enough, you can find similarities between any 2 people. Did you know Margaret Thatcher ALSO supported goverment health care? And Ronald Reagan supported sensible gun laws and the ban on assault weapons?
So I stopped reading after you claimed the supreme court outlawed prayer in schools because I grew up in a public school where we prayed every day. The law is not banning prayer from school, only banning the force of making every single person pray, no matter what his/her religion. If your first paragraph isn’t legit, I doubt the rest is.
I’m a Bible believing Christian and disagree with almost everything that you say here. This knee jerk comparison to Hitler is beneath contempt and intellectually dishonest. Prayer is not outlawed in school. Officially sponsored prayer is and should be outlawed. What you are espousing and railing about has nothing to do with your faith but with how your conservative culture has hijacked the Christian faith and turned it into something which no longer resembles Christianity. There is no war on religion or Christianity in this country. The reason that people are turning to new age religion in this country is because they are sick of the misrepresented Christianity that people like you present. If you want to see people in our country respond positively to Christ, then you need to move away from your politically and culturally based syncretic cult that the right wing fundamentalists have created. You talk about Hitler and Germany — well, one of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s ( who was put to death by Hitler ) colleagues, Eberhard Busch, visited church’s in our country in 2005 and this is what he said:
“To my regret I got the impression that among Christians the relation of church and state or the relation of what it means to be a child of God and to be an American has become confused. What is confessed by this: that in some churches in your country the American flag is erected? At Lancaster Theological Seminary I was asked what I think about Americanism, and I gave the answer: You may be grateful to God that you are allowed to be Americans. So many from this country are messengers of peace in their surroundings and for people far away. But Americanism? – this means violence! God preserve your country and the rest of humanity from that! (In Europe )There they had to learn that the church must be separated from the state, because the church had to ask again and again not what the state liked, what the nation liked, or what the people would like to hear, but what would proclaim and declare God … Today, we have to do with ‘American Christians’ who cannot separate nation from gospel, counting upon God to bless their crusades and praying to ‘Jesus, the warrior’ rather than to ‘the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.’ To this, we speak a firm ‘No!’”
The problem with the American church is that it has become all American and leaves little room for Christianity.
My previous comment was in response to Patrick .. not the article.
What “American Church” are you talking about”? There is no such thing. My Church, Williamsburg Community Chapel, uses the revelation of God, the Bible, as an authority. What do you use?
There is no such thing as the “American Church”. It says so right in the 1st amendment of the US Constitution. Read it for once. Thomas Jefferson’s letter regarding the Treaty of Tripoli also reaffirms the fact that there is no official State endorsed religion. We have American interpretations of a particular faith. We have Americanized services. But we do NOT have an American Church. Never did. And if we do, then we will no longer be American.
I believe by american church is not a formal title of a national religion but the ideas that america and god in many churches throughout the country are intertwined in both prayer and thought. God bless america is a prime example of what is being described when in fact nationalism has absolutely no part in any core Christian belief. Or the fact that in many churches praying for soldiers is commonly done when murder in any shape or form is a mortal sin. So when in fact your praying for murderers, jesus would certainly not approve. I witnessed this last year in alabama where A small town’s ministry (about 5-7 people) at a fourth of july celebration decided to give speeches to the town about how religion belongs in school (their religion of course) and to pray to the men and women of the armed forces. While i personally believe the military is a necessary evil in this world i do not mix god/jesus/faith with them at all. To do so would be a perversion of my faith.
I think that RC below was the only one who understood what I was trying to say, so perhaps I was not clear enough. Certainly there should be no such thing as a state church. The quote from Eberhard Busch above was addressing essentially what RC was saying .. there’s too much nationalism within our churches. Apart from the obvious presence of flags in our churches, there are the more subtle examples. In a church I recently attended, over the period of a year there were numerous outreach ministries in support of our troops and outreach to “first responders”. There’s nothing wrong about those things, but it was curious to me that the statement of appreciation to “those who serve the community” didn’t include teachers or those who don’t wear a uniform. The reason is fairly obvious to me. Within the evangelical church in America, there is a disproportionate number of people who push for an overwhelmingly strong military, who support gun rights, who see America as some sort of world savior. The problem is that, from a spiritual point of view, none of these issues are clear cut or resolved and there should be more heartfelt searching and questioning within the church. The church in America is far too much like the culture that it comes from … especially from the fringe right. People like Patrick can spout scripture but their views are simply their views and have much more to with how they were raised than the teachings of Jesus.
@James,
This is just my understanding of your clarification…
The hyper-nationalism within the Christian Right of America has become, in and of itself, its own religion. Their membership seems to prioritize the the Nationalism over the religious philosophy otherwise taught in the same denomination outside of US.
Is that what you meant?
Tracey, yes, exactly and it’s what Eberhard Busch was trying to say. My life is prioritized. God is first in my life, followed by my wife. My country is way down the list. God is not an American. In fact, while people like Patrick seem to think that America is a Christian nation ( or founded as one ), the truth is that nationalism is an impediment to genuine conversion. Syncretism is the mixture of various religions, and it’s my belief that what we’ve come to define as the evangelical church in this country has very little to do with Christianity. “Anonymous” below says that at his church they use the Bible as their authority. I do as well. To often though, many who say that they use the Bible as their authority, really don’t. They too often bend and misuse scripture to justify their own conservative, cultural beliefs. In fact, their true god is their cultural upbringing. There is little room left for God to be involved in their lives. The current debate over guns is a prime example of this. The vast majority of evangelicals support political parties which promote a knee jerk defense of weapons. I’m not addressing the politics of this or judging any individual Christian’s decision to own a gun. The issue is that there is NO debate within the majority of evangelical churches on this. Pastors may teach that it’s a sin to have long hair, or that life begins at conception or any number of other issues that are not clearly established in scripture, but they won’t even touch the issue of whether it’s a conflict for Christians to own guns ( much less promote them ). There are many more scriptures, and those scripture are much clearer, about the issue of guns ( swords, chariots, etc ) and God’s disdain for them. But, there is no real discussion. The reason is painfully obvious. For far too many Christians, this is an area of their lives which they have told God “You are not welcome to talk to me about this.” If all Christians would genuinely try to follow Jesus’ teachings, then the membership of the NRA would drop dramatically. I’m going to do all that I can to challenge and, if necessary, confront my brothers and sister on this false idol.
So what you’re really saying is Hitler was a brilliant man who was way ahead of his time?
Well, you sure wasted a lot of time on all that shit, didn’t you.
Hitler invented (at least was a major player) in the development and manufacturing of the VW!
And BMW made Hitler’s airplane parts. So you point is? Germany had many businesses that were built up by WWII. So did America. There would be no Jeep if it was not for WWII.
Christmas in Germany was always called Weinachten. Since the 12th century when Germany was mostly converted. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Weihnachten
The US interstate highway system is based on the German system that Hitler had built.
IBM was a major business partner with the Germans. In fact they built the “computer system” that was used to keep track of all the victims of the holocaust.
I will say this, America allowed this to happen and even financed him in the beginning as national socialism was much more appealing to big american business as was fascism in Spain defeating anarcho-syndicalism in their 1930s revolution, unlike the idea of bolshevism and a worker owned government in Russia, but we know how that ended anyway. This enabled a major boost in Germany’s economy though massive industrial advances as this was to give us another economic ally. It was to be their job to take down the People’s Revolution in Russia. While all this was happening, the British administration was covering up some of it’s own flaws that would soon turn into its own holocaust known as the Bengali Holocaust that killed approxamately 6-7 million Indians, hindu & muslim. This atrocity went well coverd up to much of the world as many still know nothing about it and such was trying to happen in Germany but could not go on as Hitler began engaging our allies and reached out and bombed London and we became financially obliged to them. This is the part that we, the Americans and British, had to play in it and it is just the beginning. This is all verifiable history and if you look at university websites instead of second hand information you will find the truth if you look hard enough that the nations we hold so dear have demonstrated acts more heinous than this, or at least as bad. In the time that Britain spent in India 1.8 billion Indians died from starvation or violence. Since we have entered Afghanistan there have been 5.6 million Afghan war related deaths. From 2003-2011 there were 2.7 million post-invasion Iraqi war related deaths. The numbers go on as these are the two places that are televised that the population is aware of. I say this just to say that not all men can be lumped into a category because they support guns. We have a government problem and a major one and have had for some time. We supported a government that commited the mass murder of Gandhi’s people. Now is not the time for gun control and or fathers would agree. Background checks? Sure. We need assault weapons and this is no time to take them. i believe in Thomas Jefferson. He saw the folley in the Massechusettes Rebellion and still said, “God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” If we don’t have assault weapons, how do you suppose we can keep our government in check, especially in a time when it keeps getting larger?
While such paranoia may get the old adrenalin racing and make one feel alive, it is dangerous to bandy about such falsehoods. To begin with, the US Supreme Court did not “outlaw” prayer in schools. In fact, it has held up the right for people to pray in school. And there are clubs all over the country that pray. In schools. We just do not have out gov’t sponsored schools, paid for by everyone’s tax money, supporting one religion over another. Sounds fair for everyone. Including Christians. Remember, the prayer you want in public schools may not be the kind of prayer that you want.
I am looking over the rest of your statement, and I am wondering which Christian colleges and universities have felt compelled to remove crosses from their buildings and grounds. Seems that our religious colleges here in the midwestern part of the country put up anything they want. Because they are private. My husband and I paid for our children to go to Catholic schools, and were glad that religion was a part of it. When they changed to public schools, we were equally glad that religion wasn’t a part of it, because we don’t want to see our freedoms melt away like that.
I don’t have the time or inclination to comment on all of your points. suffice it to say that some of your statements were more outlandish than those I refer to.
While such paranoia may get the old adrenalin racing and make one feel alive, it is dangerous to bandy about such falsehoods. To begin with, the US Supreme Court did not “outlaw” prayer in schools. In fact, it has held up the right for people to pray in school. And there are clubs all over the country that pray. In schools. We just do not have out gov’t sponsored schools, paid for by everyone’s tax money, supporting one religion over another. Sounds fair for everyone. Including Christians. Remember, the prayer you want in public schools may not be the kind of prayer that you want.
I am looking over the rest of your statement, and I am wondering which Christian colleges and universities have felt compelled to remove crosses from their buildings and grounds. Seems that our religious colleges here in the midwestern part of the country put up anything they want. Because they are private. My husband and I paid for our children to go to Catholic schools, and were glad that religion was a part of it. When they changed to public schools, we were equally glad that religion wasn’t a part of it, because we don’t want to see our freedoms melt away like that.
I don’t have the time or inclination to comment on all of your points. suffice it to say that some of your statements were more outlandish than those I refer to.
Although I am an atheist, I attended a Catholic high school simply because I could get a better education there, and there was a lot of violence and racism in the local public high school. They had a mandatory theology class, where you read and interepreted passages from the bible, more as literature and as a reflectioon of the times when the book was written, rather than as a religious focus. But when I began pointing out the obvious contradictions between different passages of biblical text, such as there are three completely different absolutely last and final words that Jesus supposedly ever spoke, I was exempted from further attendance in this mandatory class, because my questions might undo years of brainwashing–I mean careful teaching–of the Catholics in that school (by the way, Hollywood resolves the discerepancy between the three different last words by having Jesus say all three in quick succession). Unlike the most conservative of Protestants, they weren’t afraid to teach us science that contradicts the bible–we even did the Miller-Brown experiment where methane, ammonia, and water ina sterilized beaker, subjjected to electricity such as lightning, produces thick gobs of DNA, “proving” that no supernatural explanation is needed for how inanimante matter becomes life (their explantion was that this was merely the miraculous mechanism by which a deity created life).I was not the only atheist, and we also had two brothers in that school who were Jewish. Kids prayed in the school if and when they wanted to, there was no set time and no required prayer, there were crosses everywhere, but nobody was FORCED to participate in prayer.
Ed,
One simple correction the Miller brown experiment did not create DNA, just some amino acids. Important indeed, but not miraculous 🙂
Good God, I laughed my ass off reading this. Hahaha. Wow, it was so good I had to read it out to some others and they also had a good laugh.
Hitler was a Christian, and as far as replacing school prayer is concerned, he did so to enforce the citation of a declaration of loyalty to the Fuhrer, not because he was anti-Christian. Americans pledge allegiance to the flag, which is effectively the same thing. When you look up Nationalism in any country that is not Germany and the USA, you see Germany and the USA as prime examples of what that word means.
Any school that is not publicly funded, such as a Catholic school, is free to pray as much as they want as are they free to force unbelieving students to pray simply because their parents pay tuition.
PUBLIC schools are not allowed to pick favorite religions, or prayers, because the PUBLIC is made up of all denominations of Christianity, as well as every other religion (or lack thereof). Do you know what the Protestant parents would say if their children were instructed to say prayers of Catholic origin? It would be like the gays vs. hateful heterosexuals to the power of a thousand flaming suns of times long since passed! Baptists reading from the book of Mormon? Entertainment to last us until the rapture, whichever one you fancy!
THAT is why PUBLIC schools do not follow the gospel of any God or religion. Considering how much the American school system hates sex education, insisting that anything other than abstinence-only be taught at home by parents at their own discretion, it’s really quite hilarious when they try to complain and base fear mongering, insulting propaganda around their abused Christian roots. Next you will tell us that God sent the shooter to Newtown, who was personally flown in by Obama, and armed to the teeth by Clinton.
Go read a book. Like, a real book. One with facts and citations from accredited, peer reviewed sources. Until you are able to do just that, perhaps you should sit down, drink your juice box, and let the adults talk.
Oh, and Hitler and the Nazi regime were FIERCELY opposed to abortion. Jews and homosexuals, or the genetically defective, could easily be done away with – but to bring in the master race every child of German birth had to be brought into the world. Period.
I can’t stop laughing. Wow.
If Hitler was a ‘christian’.. his actions and fruit sure didnt show it !
Apparently, Patrick is a member of – or brother in arms to – the Westboro Baptist Church nutballs.
Maybe you’d better move to another country if you find it so awful here.
Or maybe we should take it back from the idiots who make it awful
Red Herring. Straw Man. Defelctor General. WHirledNutsDaily wacko.
I am tired of hearing that prayer is not banned from schools, only cannot be lead by school. This is not true. their have been many school kids who decided to pray on their own, such as a prayer before game, etc. and were told they cannot do this!! Teachers have been fired for wearing crosses! We Cannot say Merry Christmas, Happy Easter! don’t tell me things are banned!
Please document cases (State, School District and legal case file number) where teachers have been fired for wearing a cross. If such case ever really happened, there HAD to be more behind it than just the wearing of jewelery. I would like to see the legal case numbers on that because there is no way possible that incident would not be before the US Supreme Court.
Where do you live? I’m from upstate NY, I attended a public high school that allowed a group of students to pray around a flag pole and have a Bible study group after school on Thursdays. They weren’t directly associated with the school in any way, but no one in charge made any big to do about the whole thing.
I believe if the person is making a big deal about praying then yes the teacher or the school should make an issue. They really shouldn’t try to call attention to themselves during a prayer and it shouldn’t be made mandatory for all students to pray during a game because it violates the constitution. Besides the Bible also has a lot to say about people who show off their praying and their so-called devoutness.
Tracey
He is pulling shit out of his ass. There is no cases he can actually cite that would fit what he thinks is going on.
In fact there was a case here where a school had a rule against jewelry and gang colors. A student went in with Rosary in one of the local gang colors and he was sent home. He was told he could not return with it on. His mother refused to let him take it off so he was out of school for several weeks as she sued the school. The court ruled the school could not prevent him from wearing it in the school.
If you are reading this, please stop. You will want the time spent here back. Proceeding is only a waste of time. I promise you, you will learn nothing by continuing on.
People’s beliefs, viewpoints and comments are fascinating in a dualistic way – both interesting and outright ugly. This statement you just posted is kind of like scaring ants away from a picnic by pouring sugar on the ground.
Prescott Bush, father of Pres 41 and grandfather of Pres 43, wanted to overthrow the US government and join Hitler and Germany. There was an active community of people he was working with to try achieving that goal. He should have been executed for his crimes but Roosevelt was too kind to them.
The 1930s-1940s German government WAS NOT SOCIALIST! They were FASCISTS! You should learn the difference because, aside from everything else you posted, that make you sound stupid. People need to learn the difference between all the isms if they are going to speak about any of them.
You are proof that our education system needs fixing and if you are a product of home schooling or a religious school then you ruin a case that either should continue to be in existence.
Your post makes me recall an old guy (about my age) from the local VFW who “explained” to me during the recent election campaign that the Nazis were socialists–after all, they had the word “Socialist” right there in their name! IMHO, Hitler represented himself as whatever he thought would get people to follow him–hence his references to various beliefs/connections which he felt would win over segments of the German populace. The only belief I am sure he held was the belief that Germany could & would rule the world & that he, personally, could & would rule Germany and thus eventually the world. He was perhaps the most successful demagogue the world has ever seen, but there were very few individuals or groups to which he was loyal over time; and I would be very hesitant to state where his loyalties actually lay. In that regard, to me he epitomizes the quote, “The devil can cite scripture to suit his purpose.”
Hitler hated socialists and communists and stated so over and over in his tome “Mein Kampf” in 1933 one of the first things he did was OUTLAW the socialist and the communist parties alltogether. The SDP and the KPD were disbanded and their leaders jailed and their assets seized. The NSDAP had nothing in common with what we think of as socialist today. Along with outlawing the socialist parties the also outlawed trade unions. That is Fascist and more resembles the Republican party of the USA today with their anti union stances and passing laws to eliminate workers collective barganing rights.
Yes, they had the word “Socialist” right there in their name! Just like “Best” Korea under the Kim Jong family has both “Democratic” and “Republic” right there in their name! As did East Germany when it was still a separate nation before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
JC H: I disagree with a couple of your points. First of all, the term “National Socialism,” used by Nazis and similar parties, did not refer in any way to what we think of as socialism. It was a term for the subjugation of individual rights to the good of the “nation,” i.e. Aryans.
Second, Hitler’s beliefs were set out clearly in Mein Kampf in the early 1920’s and changed very little from there to the day he died. Yes, he sometimes made alliances of convenience, but his underlying world view was remarkably consistent.
Ken, in reference to your last paragraph, are there any school systems that are up to par according to you? If so, what are your suggestions? Just curious. I was both in Public School & then transferred to homeschooling from 5th-12th & then back to a State school for College where I was also a student athlete. I have since then coached at a wide range of schools including private, public & home at many different levels. I feel I have a good idea of the base of each. However, I am always inclined to hearing more on this subject. Thank you in advance.
Wow, that is one hell of a reply and typo free to boot. My guess is that you cut and pasted that from somewhere else. It is good to have throw down propaganda like this, just in case.
Ah…so American Liberalism now equals extreme-right wing Nazism? Nice try. But you could drive trucks through those ridiculous argument. However, I will propose one analogy between modern-day America and Nazi Germany that proves apt. Nazism (and Fascism in general) is the merger of government and private industry. Washington D.C. today is no longer only hammered by the lobbyists of private industry (formerly known as the special interests), but has in fact completely merged with them. It is not even a question whether Coca-Cola and Exxon will be at the table; they’re always there, and government organizations such as the EPA are headed and staffed by former Oil company executives and representatives. There are indeed definite parallels between 1930’s Germany and the US in the 10’s, but it has nothing to do with the druidic subculture and social welfare programs.
The march towards American Fascism is even worse at the state level. There is now an organization called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), whose stated purpose is to bring representatives of the business world and government together. What essentially happens in these get-togethers is that corporate bigwigs hand local legislators bills they have written, to bring home and put forth in their state senates, congresses, etc. The NRA, and America’s largest firearms merchant, Wal-Mart, are, of course, charter members.
Some points are good, but some are making correlations that are not there. I am a vegetarian, enviromentalist and believe in love between all humans. At the same time I am against corrupt governments, totalitarian regimes and capitalism. Yes I am against capitalism, the system you appear to embrace so much? Why? Check the children of Capitalism: Monsanto (oh look a monstrous non-government corporation) that the US government protects and even hired some of their ex-executives/employees into the FDA who will later rejoin Monsanto. Monsanto’s plans? Global control of food supply, everyone is subject to Monsanto’s control. Sounds like socialism doesnt it? Capitalism and what you call socialism (which is not real socialism) are the same thing. Whoever controls supply and money controls the world and establishes his own rules and its Capitalists. The banking system of FIAT money and DEBT RAISING FOR GROWTH are born from capitalism. Open economic textbooks and read. They are a farse. They teach capitalism as the ultimate system where profitability promotes competition and is creates motive to improve wealth and quality of life. Bullshit. How many examples do we have where corporations have influence over governments to promote their interests? How many examples do we have where offering the best solution is less profitable and hence not offered to the public? How many examples do we get where every day of products that are harmful? We could have had free energy decades ago but we dont. It doesnt go well with the interests of businessmen and the elite who got their power thanks to capitalism. We still use oil which ensures our dependence and pollutes the environment. Lets move further. The FED, financial/banking system. All of which are results of the current capitalistic system and they are the forces that work behind governments and the economic system to enslave you.Why do you thing the Bielderberg group is consisted of the most rich and successful people in Businessmen. Capitalists. Supporters of free trade. Supporters of globalization. We have corporate controlled media and media controlled by governments that handshake together to satisfy their interests to further establish globalizatio. We read and listen to the media and we are all in awe of technological enhancements and trade than in reality slowly enslave us. We in the developed world are in awe by looking at those beautiful growth numbers and we enjoy those beautiful products and services. Products that they would have never been existed if poor countries did not exist to exploit for lower costs. Countries who are often enslaved the capitalistic system. Their people never enjoy the goods and services they produce. hey get paid peanuts while the big businessmen get a big chunck into their pockets. Guatemala for example enjoys some of the highest growths in the world while at the same time has one of the most serious hunger problems in the world. Thanks to the IMF and corporate invasion to their country they lost their economic dependency. The government is not controlled by its people anymore. They produce for others instead for their country. Their government is in essence controlled by tools of capitalism.
Who do you think funded the Nazi’s? Wasnt it the foreign banking system? Does Prescott Bush ring a bell? Whose grand and great grand children became presidents? Why are former CEO and businessmen taking control of your government and the courthouses?Is it because of socialism? No. Socialism doesnt exist to begin with. They slowly establish a system THEY call socialism, and then they use their propaganda to create confusion as to what socialism really is. Because capitalism is NOT about free choice. It only gives enough choice to create the illusion of freedom. Its a system with loopholes where the 1% globally can exploit to gain control of the rest 99%. Its a system that does propaganda and convinces that everyone has equal opportunity and has free choice and it goes hand in hand with democracy. But its far from the truth
Secret services are controlled by big bankers. Banks and corporations create and hire private armies which commit to war crimes and not only. The government hires these private armies too….besides…when you ve got politicians with tides to corporations they will make decisions or create false flag attacks that benefit the pockets of their “freinds” and theirselves. The government does wars to support the war industry. Good stuff for businessmen and investors in that area too. The owner of the twin towers knew exactly what was going to happen. BOOM he made a nice special insurance some time before the attack and he got some pretty big amount of money. Capitalism sells successfully the impression that we freed ourselves from monarchs and oligarchs. We never did. Entertainment, misinformation and false hope that by working 10+ hours a day will eventually pay off, while we forget our fellow humans, we forget our humanity, our families, our development, we compete each other and live in constant stress.We forget the NOW. We are in a constant battle to be like the false “perfect looking supposedly successful happy celebrities and businessmen” because they fill our brains with conflicts, fear and dreamy lives that dont exist. This is what the elite wants.
There many people like me who feel the same….now tell me…do these ideas fall in line with Nazi’s/socialists/elite plans? Or against???
People like us believe in religious identity which should be maintained while at the same time we believe that we show understanding for all other religions and we study as much as we can from all to discover ourselves, not through dogmas (which the government and capitalists use to brainwash and control us) but through personal search for truth. I believe in a system where authority are the people and not a body of few who control the majority which Capitalisms promotes. I believe in an autonomous system where people get educated to search inside and discover who they are in order to eliminate conflict and show more compassion. I believe in an autonomous system where people’s motivations are not money but the real motive is to improve society through social offer and personal care. The opposite of what capitalism is. Our governments are going slowly against the common good not because we are transforming into what you call socialism. Its because capitalism allows this and whoever controls money, controls the world.
All power structures have the ability to be abused. Even a totalitarian government, headed by one supreme leader, has the capacity to be fair and altruistic – it rarely or never happens but you get my point.
Capitalism itself is not inherently evil – people abusing the system make it so. The same can be said of socialism. I believe a proper application of both can work. I don’t believe a pile of babies in a pond of bathwater is a solution to anything – in essence, don’t outright demonize anything. Everything has the capacity for “good and evil”.
I totally agree but will add that “Capitalism” and “Communism” are two 20th century constructs that are no longer relevant to our World. I believe that Capitalism died out about the same time as Communism (during the 1980s). What we have now is the ILLUSION of a rational economic system but in reality is a rigged game that benefits only the 1%. Dante is right, it is the system that is the problem, not the particular politicians and individuals who make it up.
I stopped as soon as I started because I realized that you as many others that oppose capitalism probably have not taken the time to read the Wealth of Nations. I will begin by saying that what you call Capitalism is not capitalism. Adam Smith strictly speaks against government involment in economics and corporate involement in the state. He also speaks against corporatism. All that is wrong with capitalism makes it no longer true capitalism. This is State capitalism, much like any other Statist government of old (Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Imerial Britain, Socialist Cuba, post-revolution) is shit, and is what we all want to fight. The FED is also not a result of a capitalist system, it is a result of centralized government and its people having lost their power to fight against the government or at least the perception of such. Adam Smith also taught that cometition would occour naturally and drive the price of commodities down which it does. What you are talking about is slavery and Adam Smith, the man we call the father of capitalism, also said that this should be fought. I don’t know what text books you’re reading but you should really go read the actual literature for yourself because this is something so far from capitalism and I don’t agree with it any more than you do, but I also don’t agree with changing the system of government which we have established here which we would have to do if we went to something like anarcho-syndicalism. This country has a beautiful constitution and some of the founders had such beautiful visions for this place and I believe that this place can be saved from the hands of the monsters here through taking back some power trough direct action and imposing legislation that would seperate coporation from state and some others.
Dante, if a government is protecting Monsanto, you can rest assured that is not the fault of capitalism, it is business hijacking government to protect it. Capitalism itself can’t be expected to cure the woes of society, nor the nature of man. It is an economic philosophy and cannot act for itself. Errors and crimes are committed by people; protecting against them is likewise done by people.
If any systematic problem exists, it would be in our legal system. Yet, this legal system is also the product of people seeking their own interests by government force, and not the product capitalism.
I like Mike’s post on Feb 26. Thanks, Mike!
I agree, Mike, we do have a beautiful Constitution. Our laws should mimic the constitution by creating a playing field where no party is promised a win by the government when there is no legitimate right tied to that win. Privileges for companies should not exist. If this were done, men could honestly pursue their own economic interests in true style without stepping on other people’s rights (real capitalism).
Paul Avery,
Just like those who use money and influence to control our laws in America’s Capitalist economy, bad eggs and power seekers have always attempted to have influence over the ways that society and its laws work in Communist States. The ideal has never been reached under either system because of the greed and power trips of our leaders. Personally, I think, the attempt to create a society in which all people are equal and have equal influence over their opportunities, is much more impossible to obtain under Communist ideology than under Capitalism.
Although we can possibly level the playing field in our American business world, it is doubtful that even this, will happen overnight. Especially since Those seeking power and influence, are always adept at entrenching their positions of power in ways not easily remedied.
We will probably never rid ourselves completely the philosophical malady which asserts that, “All pigs are created equal, but some are more equal than others.” In the meantime we can support social justice and compassionate laws as best we can–greatfull for the warnings that were so prophetically written on the wall by George Orwell and others like him!
Hitler was a Catholic.
Let us remember the wise words of Nietzsche in denouncing this horrible man:
“I condemn Christianity. I bring against it the most terrible of accusations that ever an accuser put into words. It is to me the greatest of all imaginable corruptions […] It has left nothing untouched by its depravity. It has made a worthlessness out of every value, a lie out of every truth, a sin out of everything straightforward, healthy and honest. Let anyone dare to speak to me of its humanitarian blessing! To do away with pain and woe is contrary to its principles. It lives by pain and woe: it has created pain and woe in order to perpetuate itself.
“It invented the idea of original sin. Invented ‘the equality of souls before God’ – that cover for all the rancor of the useless and base. It has bred the art of self-violation – repugnance and contempt for all good and cleanly instincts. Parasitism is its praxis. It combats all good red-blood, all love and all hope for life, with its anemic ideal of holiness. It sets up ‘the other world’ as a negation of every reality.
“The cross is the rallying post for a conspiracy against health beauty, well-being, courage, intellect, benevolence – against life itself. The eternal accusation I shall write upon all walls: I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity for which no expedient is sufficiently poisonous, secret, subterranean, mean! I call it the one immortal shame and blemish upon the human race!”
Duh – Hitler talked exactly like Nietzsche, because he was heavily influenced by Nietzsche! You don’t know that?!?!! Actually, he used Christianity to gain power, but believed in ruthlessness & the iron will, like Nietzsche, when it came down to it. He promoted what he called “positive Christianity”, which took out the Jewish and pacifistic elements & replaced them with ideals of nationalism and “strength”. He believed in “Providence” & reincarnation. He called real Christianity flabby & weak:
Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered April 12, 1922, and published in his My New Order:
My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.
Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice …
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery.
When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited.
[Quoted in Freethought Today April 1990.]
Once Hitler had gained power, he began to see Christianity as a threat to the National Socialists’ domination of Germany. After 1935 his speeches and writings became more and more virulently anti-Christian; he argued that Christian worship was a sign of weakness, and that it should be replaced by reverence for the nation and the state, and of course for the National Socialist Party. However, he retained his belief in reincarnation, and his conviction that there was some supreme creative force whose will he was enacting.
The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity … The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.
I’ll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews.
[Quoted from Hitler’s “Table Talks” with Bormann,
in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny by Allan Bullock.]
I LOVE YOU!and pray for you! I don ‘t care what you say,God wrote a program so to speak.He gave it life and yes laws to go by and fallow.Trees,animals,oceans,earth,echo systems that take care of them selves.etc.Yes during history there are things done in Gods name that he never endorsed(free will they did it not him!!)All My God did was make the program lay out the law for man to follow,He wrote it and you and I are in the game.Play it how you want,But my God told me to love they nieghbor as thy self.what you do unto them you do to me.I’m not perfact at all I try but I fail sometimes.alot! but I have faith and it all works out I don’t know how or why but He said it will work out.and he wrote the program so I just try my best to be a good guy in life.John 3:16 thats the code or down load in his program he gave us all.It’s an upgrade called the “word”that was written in the program from the very beginning.there are signs and hints of this upgrade to come and without it down loaded into the program that God created all would be lost!!even the back up program.No one would win,No not one!For God so loved this creation of his that he sent HIS ONLY CYPHER (JESUS)that who so ever believeth in him(that means any one,even YOU!) shall not perish but have ever lasting life! That means you’ll be written in the new creation He’s going to make this time he’ll be there to answer questions for you.in this creation.He’ll be there with you.The other program was currupted when it was first down loaded to run because the operating system he used didn’t want to accept the new program he wrote.All fun aside he wrote it.you try your best to play while it’s running like any game you play in it’s parameters do what your not suppose to you get lost and have to find your way back to get more points or better options to last longer in the game.you can’t dictate your own way or do what you want.there are paths to take to win!He can deleate your player any time the program wants.God created the game your in it like it or not!He’s the creator your the creation.Mock out who you want,put down every thing,be the one every one hates because you want them too.either way it’s his creation your in it deal with it how you will.Fighting every one and every thing will only make it harder for your character to make it threw the game enjoying every thing in it that is there to see and experience,love,and touch.Your choice,Read the bible don’t just take from it what you don’t understand or have been told by others.
Wow, A great quote from Nietzsche!
I agree that all of our major religions have mostly failed to create many truly loving human being.nor, bring true compassion into our world, but I think the actual founders of most of our major faiths, would not approve of how their words are used to create advantages biases and rationalizations among leaders who are usually grossly riddled with sins of their own!
However, love is a goal and a valued emotion among Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and/or atheists who cherish human dignity and the spirit of compassion.
The freedom riders during the 1960’s battle for civil rights, involved many brave and dedicated people willing to be beaten because they desired a world which would include real justice. All of them rallied around their cause by singing religiously themed songs like, “WE SHALL OVERCOME, and, KUMBAYA. This fact makes me believe that many religious people, or spiritual people (if you prefer) really find a sense of strength and courage by relying on faith. Unfortunately we human beings seldom acknowledge the ideals of love and faith that our Religious founders have always wanted to transmit to us.
The words of Nietzsche are unfortunately, often true. But, I would not want to deny the many dedicated and beautiful people of faith who only want to act with love and compassion towards their fellow human beings. While we are posting our dueling opinions online, many of them are risking their lives to provide food, shelter and medicine to the victims and refugees who have faced virtual extinction, genocide and torture, for way too many years!
There is some truth to all stereotypes and also some untruths in all of them. All of us who really attempt to love and forgive others, should receive credit for doing so, whether Hindu, Communist, atheist, or Jews etc. Let’s not create unnecessary stereotypes when we generalize about any group, or category, in our human race! We really aren’t all bad!
GOD BLESS YOU PATRICK! You get it.The guy or professor of hitler lovers.Just changed words and formatted his agenda to beat really hard around the bush.Every one just wikipedia Gun politics in germany.You’ll see the people he wanted to eradicate in the 1938 revisions of the gun laws.This law effectively deprived all jews of the possession of firearms or other weapons.also persons whose trustworthiness was in question by the german government were restricted from possessing a firearm.So yes he banned weapons to his foes to take them out.And people who reply against what you wrote only pick one thing to argue out of the list of facts you display.even than they twist their untruth to sound factual.people please…. just search the facts for your self!!Don’t even trust me!look it up,Our constitution is under attack NOW. because people believe what they are told!As the professor says it’s propaganda and he’s spreading his.REPEAT A LIE LONG ENOUGH IT BECOMES TRUTH TO THOSE WANTING TO BELIEVE IT.Check facts,check more than one source,wikipedia,info on,look at the federalist papers on line from our founding fathers to see there original intent and meanning for our constitutional rights.
In other words,if people don’t agree with ‘your’ viewpoint,they’re evil,you sir are the evil one, there is no god,there are no gods, get over it and move on…
Patrick, have you ever spoken with anyone who actually was present at the time Hitler came to power in 1933? Ask them: your very bald and plain world view of how and why Hitler came to power is very different from what actually happened. I feel very sorry for you being so very confused and set in your ignorance.
Hitler is a Darling of the racist wing of the GOP. Naziism is a extreme right wing political philosophy his propaganda operation was very much like today’s tea party-republicans he used lies not guns to enslave the German people I could list true information and rebut your true misinformation but I don’t have to folks are becoming aware of the falsehoods of your wing-nut views and you should put down the cool-aid and crack a history book a real and credible one not an Bill O’Reilly book
You are one of them! The very people P.O.P was talking about! Wow! How does it feel to be you?
Hitler got Germany’s Economy going again in 1933. Bill Clinton got the U.S. Economy going again in 1992. OMG Bill Clinton is just like Hitler!
Well Pat…the answer is clear…we need to round up all these vegitarian pagan environmentalist into some sort of holding camps so they cant hurt us good god fearing americans! Only by doing so can we save our country from a hitler like…oh wait…
POP, just in love with your debunking and humor, keep on truckin….
Many thanks be unto thee.
If you think it’s oppressive for your government to be secular and treat people of all faiths equally, you MUST be a Christian. Because if you were ever a member of a minority faith living under a majority Christian government you would soon find you are gravely mistaken.
Hitler actually promoted the use of firearms by his citizens..the Aryan ones……
Jews, blacks, gays…… not so much.
Thats how gun control works…… the government has a “monopoly on violence” deciding who gets guns, who does not, who gets to live, who gets to die…..
seems safe, right?
Wow, 8 to 11 million jews slaughtered? First the number was 400,000 then 1 million, and when that number was not high enough the media began reporting 6 million. That’s neat that you have added many, many more to the total. Where there 11 million jews in Europe before Hitler came to power? Did he have them trucked in so he could achieve that number?
You are totally misguided, the British, over time, have slaughtered millions upon millions of people. They are the true socialist. Churchill was war criminal.
The American president, FDR was a socialist/commie, his war crimes were embarrassing.
Please read something other than propaganda sometime, you might become enlightened.
Really? Did you take your meds?
Hey, @Patrick (or should I call you “mapsguy1955”?). Plagiarism is against the law, you know. You copied-and-pasted that verbatim, without attribution, from either the original source, or from someone who him/herself plagiarized or perhaps legitimately used (as in including referencing the source) the original source, or someone who plagiarized a plagiarizer.
The original source is as a numbered list in an article entitled “26 Similarities Between America and Nazi Germany” authored by one Brannon Howse, an End Times prophecy preacher who runs Worldview Weekend ministries and has a talk radio show entitled “Worldview Weekend.” The article was first published in the January 2009 issue of their magazine, Worldview Weekend DIgest. When that magazine sold out, Mr, Howse published it on his website. You can read it there for free, and so can everyone else who comes here who can see what a dishonest person you are, pretending to be smart by stealing someone else’s work without even giving credit.
The WorldView Weekend website has a full-fledged copyright notice on it. Since you are arguing the same things he is, Mr. Howse would in all probability have given you permission to quote an exerpt so long as you cited him as the author and source, but you’re supposed to ask permission first and get it in writing.
In short, what you did here was to spread propaganda, and dishonestly at that. This, mind you, in the forum of the Propaganda Professor.
If you’re going to copy & paste from an article you should at least reference the author: Brannon Howse, another Xtain loon.
Holy Crapola!! You Equate Abortion and Obamacare with Nazism?!? Health Care Reform was to prevent excesses of Insurance companies and refusing to Insure based on “pre-existing conditions.” I’M in the Medical Profession and I Applaud this. Abortion?? The Jewish Bible does not recognize a Baby as living until the beginning of the First Trimester. Now, I respect that abortion, by it’s very nature is controversial, but you Right Wingers are against Condoms and The Pill, too, which Prevents Abortions and unplanned pregnancies. And we Liberals only want Euthanasia for the Brain Dead and folks who are terminally ill or really suffering and WANT to End their lives. It is YOU who are Fascist for denying them their Dignity.
And how’s that Obamacare working out for you. Everything negative predicted about it by conservatives has come true. Premiums are increasing exponentially not nearly enough younger healthy people signing up to offset the cost of older less healthy people that do sign up. The list goes on too many to list here. It’s not healthcare insurance it’s just another government giveaway program that we can’t afford. Even AARP who was one of the biggest proponents and who got into healthcare because of Obamacare is now saying they are pulling out because they are afraid the program will go bust leaving them holding the bag. . Imagine that who would have guessed. You lefties aren’t going to be happy until you bankrupt this country just like you’ve already done in the big cities. Even then you won’t stop just like in Greece, an economic basket case yet the people are calling for more socialism,
Mr. Campbell,
One needs to realize that medical costs have been rising steeply in recent years, and that the ACA is not designed to dictate the costs of medical care. What the itself does, often leads to such rapidly increasing costs. What Obamacare does is provide some basic ground rules and provide subsidies that then bring insurance within the grasp of many lower income people who have previously been denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, caps on medical expenses, or simply costs that are too great for them to bear.
Since the various exchanges that are available, may offer lower prices in response to competition, one would expect their responses to such competition, to keep prices at affordable levels. However, many Republican states, with Republican governors who have the support of rubber-stamp Republican legislatures, have not only turned down the chance to create local exchanges, (which has then only placed a greater burden on Federal exchanges) but they have also denied prudent Medicaid expansions which would have greatly relieved the State’s own medicaid costs—since almost all of their Medicaid expenses would have initially been picked up by the federal government. Thus, one has to suspect Republican sabotage as a major force which has left no stone unturned, in its ruthless attempts to cause the ACA fail.
If one reads the responses of fact checking websites which have consistently disproved the many dire predictions about the monetary costs of Obamacare made by the GOP, almost all of them involve lies and/or misinformation which have been deliberately spread by Republicans. So one has to admit that much of the rough waters encountered by the new law, have been placed it the way by partisan interests, partisan lies and partisan propaganda.
What all of this has to do with Hitler and gun regulations in Nazi Germany, I will never know? Personally I think Republicans are closer to resembling a fascist mentality than democrats have ever been. But that kind of constant meme is not often a valid or constructive way to evaluate and understand human history–so I just had to answer some of your anti-Obama tirades, which seems so intent on vilifying the beliefs of anyone who simply help give the poor a means to take care of their own health.
All of the alternative plans offered by the GOP, are so far only as good as their resemblances to similar benefits already part of the ACA. However the only way to provide a large enough customer insurance pool is with a federal mandate. Mitt Romney knew this, but in his situation, he was the one who offered to negotiate with a Democratic state legislature. His health care reforms remain effective to this day–so what does that say about which party is more willing to compromise?
But Mr. Johnson, that is not the governments job to interfere like that. That is something local charities and other programs can get involved in, possibly even the local government, but not the Federal Government. It’s just not their job.
Sorry that you don’t like like my use of the word but I explained what I meant by it. What word or term would you have used that would better describe what I meant by it as explained in my post. . How about the word symbol is that better? I thought this was a discussion about Hitler and gun control not word usage.
Personally I wouldn’t have said it at all. . . .and if you’re gunna get nasty about particulars, why aren’t you talking about Hitler and gun rights??? 😉 What I responded to had nothing to do with gun rights or Hitler, you were talking about abortion, which I also disagree with. Abortion is murder and that’s the only way you can truthfully put it.
P.S. Yes I know I’m not talking about Hitler or gun rights, I’m merely responding to what you said, so let’s not look for little things to throw each other down. Thanks! 🙂
I was not getting nasty, And I did not change the topic somebody else did, about healthcare. After responding to it I realized that was a mistake. When he wrote back I responded telling him to find another forum to talk about healthcare, He was a lib big on abortion and obamacare not me. I’m an anti-abortion pro-gun conservative.
Sorry I must have read your comments wrong then, because it sounded like you were supporting healthcare and abortion. My bad.
You can argue until you are blue in the face to justify but we simply can’t afford any more entitlement programs. The government does not belong in the healthcare business. As a matter of fact it doesn’t belong in many of the non-defense matters it’s presently involved in. We have a trillion dollar plus annual spending deficit and an almost 20 trillion dollar national debt. We are rapidly approaching financial implosion. The healthcare insurance problem was not as bad as liberals made it out to be. They made it sound like people were dropping off like flies when that was not the case. Another massive federal entitlement program was not the answer as proven by the chaos and increased costs caused by Obamacare. We need a free market solution. Please don’t bother responding. Our differences on this are just too great. If you fail to see the need to cut back the size of the government then there is no sense in you and I having a discussion.
.
So, since health care is an unessential, I’m guessing your solution for those who are too poor or sick to get insurance is to “die and reduce the surplus population”. Happy Thanksgiving, Mr. Scrooge.
I’ll tell you the same thing I told another who wanted to talk about healthcare. I signed on to talk about Hitler and gun control, not healthcare. I don’t know how this turned into a healthcare discussion but I don’t want to talk about it. If you wish to talk about it you’d be better off finding another thread or a different blog where the topic is healthcare. And I also suggest that you refrain from insulting those who disagree with you. You’re like a petulant child. Please don’t respond because I don’t want to talk to you.
Mr. Campbell,
You’re right that healthcare is not directly related to gun regulations nor to the specific issues involved with the 2nd Amendment, but the way it becomes relevant is in the context of what our government can and cannot do, i.e. The government has sought to regulate weapons, and the government has also sought to provide healthcare for every member of a grossly under-insured public. But, the common denominator found in both, is in regards to whether these government activities reflect its constitutional duty to promote the general welfare of its citizens, and whether that endeavor is a valid use of our government.
I also don’t think that (strictly speaking) healthcare is a right, but the government does not specifically guarantee any of us the right to be protected from armed mass shooter in movie theaters either! Fortunately though the government tries to do so. That’s what justifies discussing both these types of human welfare in regards to what the government should or shouldn’t do about them!
The point I am making is that the government has both the duty to honor the 2nd amendment, as well as to protect the pursuits of life, liberty and happiness among its citizens—as clearly protected in the 14th Amendment. And without protecting human life by specifically taking measures to reduce gun crimes and mass murders, how can the government ever hope to even come close to fulfilling that important responsibility?
None of our Constitutional rights or Amendments have been established as if written in stone, nor WITHOUT the guarantee that the Supreme Court has the right to modify them over the passage of time. When there is a need for public safety which can be preserved under our legal system. That’s when the Court has a clear right to define and clarify the intentions of the 2nd amendment. If guns were not often the weapons of choice by those with sick or criminal minds, we would not need to worry, but since we do need to worry, the government can rightfully exert its influence.
Personally, my comments were in response to some anti-Obama rants from you—something which also might be considered not directly relevant to the issue of gun control, or exactly what the 2nd Amendment protects. Sorry if I deviated from the topic, I think Obama with all his faults, is one of the best Presidents we have ever had, and so I am prone to come to his defense.
Surely you must agree that the President is not responsible for the avalanche of financial catastrophes that landed on his desk shortly after being elected? It was primarily two unfunded wars in the middle east, at a time when Bush was more interested in preventing tax increases, as well our government ignoring the outright thievery perpetrated by big banks and corporate executives, who recklessly sought profits above all else—no matter who else had to pay for it, or how many lobbyists had to be enlisted to assure their monetary gains!
Yes you are correct that this forum is about gun regulations, and particularly those supposedly instituted by Hitler. But that fact will not deter me from occasionally bringing up a tangentinal point when I believe one is warranted. I’m tired of hearing conservative ideologues rave about one of the most compassionate Presidents we have ever had, while portraying him as being like Hitler, for supposedly wanting to confiscate weapons owned by those who are giving themselves too much importance by thinking that he would even want to do that at all—or even get away with it, if he tried? Scenarios which assert such claims are utter baloney!
If you don’t want to hear me say that, then don’t read my comments and please go on making your own—either way my 1st Amendment rights do not exist merely to have them submitted to regulation from the likes of you! I also am a bit confused since I have directed my comments to both His Bondservant and you, as well. So perhaps you are taking too many of them as being specifically directed at you, and assuming that you are important enough to to be the singular person they are directed towards in the first place?
Nice! The government shouldn’t be funding any programs like these. Their job is to defend this country and the people in it, instead they throw around tax payer money, investing it in programs that in essence buy votes from people by giving them handouts. Not. . . I repeat not the governments job!
Mr Campbell,
For someone who claims his goal is to talk only about gun regulations in Hitler’s Germany, this and several of your comments seem to diverge strangely into condemnations of “entitlement,” programs and of Obamacare in particular. If you desire,here is a link to a well respected website’s assessments of the supposed massive increases in health care costs, supposedly and exclusively, in response to the ACA. After reading it I hope we can get back to the discussion at hand, and not a vindictive attempt to blame nearly anything and everything possible, on President Obama’s supposed misuses of power:
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/sep/29/republican-party-florida/health-insurance-costs-are-skyrocketing-under-obam/
it’s not supposed, it is a misuse of power.
Responding to it was a mistake. As a matter of fact I just finished writing back to someone who saw my post and was upset that I was talking off topic. I do not wish to talk about this with you any further. Go find somebody else to debate the issue.
Your entitled to your own opinion, but one thing that bothers me is that you speak for the entire liberal viewpoint, in your statement of “and we Liberals only want . . .”. You may feel that way, but that’s not how every other liberal feels, many are honest people that just don’t understand what their actions could bring about, but there are those who truly have evil intent. Just watch the generalizing. 🙂
His Bondservant,
I respectfully disagree with your beliefs about what the government can and cannot do. The Preamble says that part of the role played by our government and its Constitution, is to promote the common welfare. In other words the government is allowed to take measures that might alleviate suffering and hardships for certain segments of its people.
I shudder to think what would have been the fate of the Civil Rights movement if southern States, in response to the opinions of their leaders, and the bias of their populaces, had been able simply deny voting rights for a huge segment of the population. Thank God that the Federal government finally got involved and ordered Southern governors to make sure that Freedom riders were assured safe passage, and that schools, lunch counters, and city buses, as well as numerous other businesses and institutions were open to all American citizens. This was one extremely important case, where the government stepped up to provide for the common welfare, when State governments refused, and willfully failed to do so.
One also has to wonder about the fate of our black citizens if the south had been allowed to secede from the Union, and therefore, never banish the corrupt institution of slavery. Thanks to the role of a strong central government we have preserved a nation including fifty states, which each have many lawful options when it comes to the wishes of their leaders, and the people that elected them. Yet if the federal government had no power to enforce federal law according to the constitution, our union would have fallen apart long ago, and the constitution itself would not have been worth the paper it is written on!
The government does not have the right to dictate morality, but thank God it can dictate what actions to take when any of us try to dictate our own social laws and norms to all others—in violation of the 14th Amendment!
Expecting charities to take care of those who are infirm or suffering from chronic illnesses, is a noble idea, and the process of donating to charity has been flourishing for hundreds of years. However, charity alone has never been able to handle the many needs of those it tries to help. Nursing home care, and medical care, present astronomical costs at the ends of most of our lives, so ask yourself if you would really be able to provide the hundreds of thousands of dollar needed to care for an ill parent? This was the conventional idea centuries ago, but it was attainable only by those with the time and resources to take care of family members–the rest were tossed into woefully deficient institutions which did very little to ensure the quality of a loved ones life.
I appreciate the dedication of anyone who is willing and able to fulfill the role of caretaker for the sick and aged, but not all of us have the money or time to do that, and are in fact, completely unable to do anything near what is required.
Libertarian ideals sound good on paper and in novels, but they will always favor the halves, not the halve nots. Perhaps we should all actively detain criminals and stand guard over them in our own homes. That might relieve the tax burden of hard working people, but it just can’t be done! I will grant you the right to discuss any attempts to institute, the KINDS of governments you think we need–but NOT the idea that only minimal bare bones types of state and local laws should be operational! The more complex a society becomes the greater its need to use the government in order to effectively promote our COMMON welfare. And besides, entitlements are often given to those who have worked hard all of their lives or who just cannot physically provide for their own needs. So in that sense, any of us who have ever had our wages withheld for government funding, have earned the future benefits that we receive. Employers pay for part of it, but they also gain the benefits that come from the labor forces that they hire. If not, why do they have the need to hire anyone? Can’t they do it on their own? Take another guess!
The question asked by the POP, involves whether megalomaniacs like Hitler would truly have been kept from assuming absolute power if unlimited guns had been available to unlimited numbers of people in Hitler’s Germany, but most of us agree that his most powerful weapon was a cunning genius for disseminating propaganda.
Personally I do not object to having a second amendment right to bear arms for personal protection, but we also need to be responsible for preventing those who should not have weapons, from being so easily able to purchase them. There is a point where the public welfare has to take precedence over personal freedom, since freedom without accompanying responsibilities often prove disastrous.
Whether guns are beneficial to the public is one question, but the POP has provided plenty of evidence that Hitler was not really a rampant gun confiscator, and never even gave the speech he is so commonly believed to have made. And it seems that he did not completely banish Jews from having weapons, just from operating businesses which sold them. Its also a good question to ask whether a fully armed Jewish population would have lasted very long against the sinister power of the third Reich? And another good thing to note is that ordinary people who own weapons, quite often use them for unethical, and even criminal pursuits!
We don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but we do need to regularly change the bath water if our babies are to be born healthy and therefore, live free!
I’m not going to debate healthcare with you any further but to say again healthcare is not a right. The preamble does not set forth rights. If the framers intended to make healthcare a right they would have had included it in the bill of rights along with the right of free speech, the right to bear arms etc. .To solve the problem of people who couldn’t afford healthcare does not need the massive entitlement program that Obamacare is. It could have been solved simply by making those people eligible for medicaid. I am not saying that’s the answer but covering these people under medicare could be done for for a mere fraction of the cost. Obamacare is so screwed up and cumbersome that it can’t be fixed. It has to be repealed and started over with a clean piece of paper. Please don’t respond to this about healthcare. I will not respond. If you want to talk about healthcare go to a healthcare blog. I don’t mean to be rude but I signed up for this blog to talk about the piece on Hitler and guns.
lets just keep it at this…. If jews were allowed to have guns…. The holocaust wouldnt have happend. Their has never been a single goverment that didnt ban guns that didnt come back to massacre it’s people…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2OwM2XNGdU
Sorry, but I see no reason to believe that the Jews in Germany, with what weapons they had available, would have staved off a much better equipped NAZI army, particularly given that they (the Jews) were rather pacifistic. It could have resulted in a great deal more bloodshed, but that doesn’t mean it would have resulted in a Jewish victory. The notion that armed citizens are likely to fend off an oppressive government is mostly just another fantasy bubble surrounding the heads of gun fanatics.
Of course you don’t your a brainwashed liberal
What is it with reactionary responses and bad spelling/grammar? Is there a school where you learn all of this at once?
That is not the point. An armed populace causes problems for an army, the army will win but many will die and the government will have destroyed it’s economic base and some of it’s infrastructure. The ultimate scenario for a tyrannical government is to have a submissive helpless populace and selectively kill those that it wants with a minimum of miltary loss.
Perhaps. But the final result is generally the same. It’s just the body count that varies.
I don’t think the necessity was that the Jews had to “win” anything by being armed and resisting being herded into a ghetto and then stuffed into cattle cars headed for butchery.
An armed,serious resistance would have been impossible for the rest of the world to act as if it had no idea there was anything going on.And that’s exactly what WE here in the U.S. did.Because it was politically expedient at the time,we pretended to know nothing.
And if the rest of the world is to be believed,NO ONE really knew the full extent of the obscenity that was NAZI Germany.Why,even the Polish farmers living within yards of the camps,the same people who daily had to brush strangely oily ash from their equipment,well they swore they didn’t know anything about it either.Clear up the logic in this for me,I’m not following this.A govt. which has long blamed its economic failures on a specific group of citizens,a group some people even today characterize as “relatively pacifistic” is singled out as ineligible to own firearms for the good of the people.That makes some sense to you? People you don’t believe capable of defending themselves need to be denied arms? which side of the mouth do we listen to here?
You know why the Nazis denied Jews the right to own firearms? Not because the Wehrmacht feared losing any type of armed conflict with them,but because they knew it would attract worldwide attention.And attention to the siege of Warsaw at that time was the last thing Hitler,Goebbels,Himmler or any of Dolph’s other merry band of brothers wanted.The “silent nations”,primarily the U.S. would not have been able to play Sgt. Schultz the way we did for 3-4 years until Japan finally forced us off the fence.
Sorry,I know you like to feel superior to everyone who disagrees with you,or even anyone who may not totally agree,but if you honestly believe that any Nazi policy specifically singling out Jews for separate treatment from the “average citizen” was anything less than part of its plan for extermination,your intellectual disconnect is either sad,or disingenuous.
Feel free to attack my grammar,I’ll admit now that I didn’t graduate from college.
Ironically though,there’s a term in the vernacular that’s generally applied to those who do that in attacking an opinion.
I’ve never said that the Jews SHOULD NOT have been permitted to own firearms; merely that I doubt it would have made a difference in the long run. And I stick by that assessment, despite your point about the message it would have sent to the rest of the world — which, incidentally, is a very interesting observation.
And it isn’t my style to attack people’s spelling and grammatical errors — we all make them, including me. I made a tongue-in-cheek exception just to emphasize how ridiculous the poster’s personal attack on me was. You’ll notice that his comment didn’t really give me anything of substance to respond to.
Sorry to interrupt here, but there is a discussion within the Holocaust Studies community which is often boiled down to the following question: “If the Gestapo had been met at Jewish homes by men willing to shoot one Gestapo agent, before he was killed, would the Gestapo have eventually given up?” Those who pose this question wonder if the passivity with which Europe’s Jews met the Nazis made their deaths too cheap. There is no question, of course, that the Nazis could have killed anyone and everyone. It should also be noted that Saddam Hussein forced Iraqis to keep AK-47s in their homes in order to make them fear one another.
Interesting question and interesting debate. There’s no doubt that the Jews could have put up more of a fight, especially if they’d been allowed easy access to weapons. Would it have made a difference in the final result? I don’t see any evidence that it would. It would have made the whole process a lot messier, for sure.
“If the Gestapo had been met at Jewish homes by men willing to shoot one Gestapo agent, before he was killed, would the Gestapo have eventually given up?”
This question bothers me because it suggests that the Gestapo wouldn’t have changed their tactic to avoid being shot themselves. Further, why would they have eventually given up if only one of them was getting shot. I know it’s fun to think that groups of people we don’t like are also completely stupid, but it has no real world application.
Good observation.
So, you’re saying that if only black folks had more guns in the South the KKK would never have bombed their churches and lynched them from trees?
While I do not have any care in the world to argue what Hitler said or didn’t say… I will reply to your above comment that citizens with guns would not have prevented the holocaust.
Perhaps not. It would have made it more difficult on the other hand. Waco has nothing to do with a national effort as it was a single group. You can push your agenda all you like and be content that you can convince yourself. But I would rather die with pride in an attempt to ensure my children inherit the same freedoms previous generations provided me. I would do the same with any right. That’s what it means to me to be an American.
gern you missed telling p.o.p. to go back and watch dancing with the stars.
I would remind the gun nuts that many citizens in Rwanda did own guns, but over a million of them were rounded up and hacked with machettes while the rest of the world watched and did nothing. The government weapon of choice, as it was for Hitler, was propaganda, in this case telling people on the radio to go hack their neighbors to bits. Guns make little difference against the overwhelming, outnumbering force of a brutal totalitarian government armed with the power of propaganda. Can you not see that the gun manufacturers are using propaganda to make us want our teachers to be armed to the teeth, to majke schools even more of a war zone, so they can sell more guns and make more profits, even though thety know MORE guns in circulation won’t make us any safer? Nobody in the gun lobby is propsoing ANY solution to the increasing violence — such as restoring the budgets for after-school programs as another way for students to spend their time and channel their energies besides joining violent gangs and participating in drive-by shootings — no gun lobbyist is suiggesting creating better-paying jobs so parents don’t have to work 2 or 3 jiobs just to put food on the table and would be able to actually spend time raising their kids to be good citizens — the gun lobby’s ONLY solution to violence is selling even more guns and increasing their profits. And calling everyone with a better idea another Hitler.
Somewhat true, there were more than a few Jewish families who were armed, including veterans of the first world war. I’m not aware of much armed resistance being enacted in Germany however due to the lack of knowing what was coming, indeed some Jews supported the party in the days prior to their incarceration, and given the feelings running rampant some were delighted to be removed, believing they would be assisted in leaving the country for Israel or somewhere else safe from anti-Semitic attacks (which ironically at the time didn’t really exist anywhere in the world as the Jews had bad reputations for a variety of reasons mostly undeserved).
However calling it a NAZI army is very insulting overall.
While some of the Wehrmacht were staunch members of the NSDAP a far larger amount were not members at all. The Gestapo (Secret State Police which eventually were merged into the SS) were not military by any means, and the SS or Schutzstaffel were a paramilitary group from the 1920s and absorbed the German police, and got formed into military units as well, which were called the Waffen-SS.
Now in theory the SS were formed of party members BUT and these are facts a lot of people ignore or are ignorant of due to education, there were a lot of foreign nationals in the Waffen-SS and many Nazis actually supported the party because Hitler’s policies (please note the systemic eradication of Jews and other undesirables [including Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals and others) was never a public policy) were seen as the best way to save their countries from the depression that occurred after the first world war, many families across the continent were starving and the push of the NSDAP truly was remedying this in Germany and as a result strengthening her neighbours prior to the second world war.
Two words. Warsaw Ghetto. Read about it.
9 words: Read about it. And how did it turn out? (Sometimes truth takes a few more words, but the intellectual strain is worth the effort.)
I would disagree that the army would win. I have no idea where you all went to school but do they not teach world history anymore? I don’t understand the need for the gun fanatics name calling. For one with probably only idealism and no practice, that is a lot of conviction. Further more, being a former infantry marine I feel I can say with certainty there are a lot of us that are well trained in the art of war that do not agree with the Statist way government is going and if this civil war mobilizes will gladly fight along side civilians and so will those that are active duty right now. Anyway, I will agree with one point. If all Jews were armed, they probably would still have been killed. You also have to think that he still didn’t have that much money or men when all this started, not until just before he started to invade Poland.
On to my second point. Really? Have you never read of common people defeating a government? How nialistic are you people? What kind of world do you want to live in? When I was growing up the people that I called my heros were those who stood up and fought with their life for their freedom. Ernesto “Che” Guevara? They won by force and the gun. The French revolution of 1789? They won and won freedom from an oppressive monarchical religious state. The Bolshevik revolution? The won and for ever destroyed the czarist system in Russia. Sadly, the workers lost control to a Statist government. These are just three examples of many in which the people have defeted their own governments army.
I agree with you, but you do say you disagree that an army would win. What we see with our modern warfare is, after a military victory, the army settles into an occupation and enforces a status quo. If it needs to, it will escalate force to put down an uprising, but it never “gets the job done” to the extent that it can just leave, without years of wrangling over timetables. Spreading democracy is a liberal notion, but we spread it as far as we have to to exploit the country as long as possible, and no further than that. It goes double for comparing the US to Afghanistan. A “concerned group of deer hunters” is not going to stand up to military force. Furthermore, we are already so comfortable and cowed by our government, it doesn’t need to physically fight us. It has won a propaganda victory over us, and, just like in Afghanistan, voices that bring up a conversation that’s not officially sanctioned will find themselves put down forcefully, whether in the media and psychologically through misdirection and ridicule or militarily. This is why we can’t have nice things.
There was an armed Jewish resistance movement. They may not have gotten rid of the Nazis all by themselves but I think they managed to stay out of the labor camps, at least to some extent. At that point in history, if you were Jewish and European, staying alive was a victory in itself.
Even an extreme difference in firepower and weapons technology can be made up somewhat with sheer determination and guts. The Viet Cong didn’t have the U.S. on their side, but they won the war for all intents and purposes. We shouldn’t have won the Revolutionary War, and we almost didn’t, but look, here we are. The South lasted a lot longer during the Civil War than it had any right to do. Then there are the various terrorists in the Muslim world fighting off Americans with homemade explodey devices. And so on and so forth.
Patrick is an idiot, but you overestimate the willingness of most conquering armies to completely wipe out the people they’re invading. They’ve got to get cheap labor from somewhere.
I also realize this whole conversation is two years old but you never know, someone might decide to read it later.
I don’t believe I overestimated or underestimated anyone here, though I may not have been thorough enough. See the two sequels to this article.
You hit the nail on the head: They were pacifists. Even if they’d had the same weapons as the government they probably wouldn’t have used them.
But I think if I found myself in their shoes, I’d fight back in spite of the odds.
American gun owners and enthusiasts, (many of whom can spell and tie together words to make passable sentences) are as a rule, not pacifists.
Do you really think that the Jews were the first or the only people put into camps or exterminated by the Nazi regime. Hitler started putting his political enemies into forced labor camps YEARS before he rounded up the Jews. My Grandfather was put in a camp for not saluting and being a member of the real socialist party in Germany the SPD. Hitler incarcerated people to provide free labor for the corporations the Socialists and Communists, members of the Freemasons and also people who were members of Freethinkers clubs (atheists) from the time he took office in 1933. Kristalnacht, the beginning of the genocide of the Jewish people didnt happen until 1938. In fact most of the Jews he killed were killed OUTSIDE of Germany. While the others he worked to death were INSIDE Germany years before he started his invasions of other nations.
This is true, the former Chancellor of Austria was placed in Dachu (I can’t spell that properly) for a while before it became a death camp. I took care of a man who escaped Germany thanks to the Communist party, which also helped his mother hide, who was also held in Dachu until mid 1939. Of course the conditions weren’t much better than they were when it became a death camp and they didn’t care much for keeping Kosher.
Patrick, why is it that when liberals suggest even the most basic of gun control laws, you gun nuts start crying like a bunch of babies and screaming about how Barack Obama (or whatever liberal is popular at the time) is Hitler and the how the government coming to take your guns away? The United States will never pass a law making it illegal for ALL civilians to own guns. Even if they did, you could easily get your precious guns on the street, just like all the criminals are currently doing.
True, there are a few lunatic liberals out there who want to ban all guns (just like the lunatic conservatives who think the president is a socialist and the reincarnation of Hitler, and that the US is five minutes away from being WWII Germany. However, the rest of us are trying to have a reasonable discussion about how to allow law-abiding, psychologically fit people to own weapons to hunt with (and for personal protection), while lowering gun violence and crime, and hopefully making mass murder more difficult.
Have you ever noticed that as guns were made to hold more bullets and fire them more quickly, the number of mass shootings has gone up exponentially? In countries with strict gun laws, or where civilians are only allowed to have reasonable weapons (I mean seriously, what is anybody going to do with an A47 except shoot a whole bunch of people?).
Are you actually the idiot you profess yourself to be, spouting such crap? Even if you were to take an extremely large figure such as 6,000,000 Jews with submachine guns, what chance would they have against Hitler’s tanks, artillery, warplanes, 500 pound bombs, etc?
Jim, are you saying that if you know you cannot win, you should never fight? I mean this about life in general. I would like to know your stance on this. I understand you are speaking of the Jews vs Hitler’s reign, however, I am curious as to whether, or not, you would also take this and attest to it in the majority of your life and worldview as well.
Sorry Patrick, you’re so blinded by the bible crap you just can’t make any sort of rational conclusion. You exist to hate and you can’t understand why you are the way you are. It eats you up. People like you beat the bible on the table and at the same time hold up your guns to show you are powerful. Your entire life is against what your Jesus stood for. He would no sooner shoot an intruder than he would recognize the modern day church. I feel sorry for you. A life of ignorance.
Well said Mask, my mother and I have been saying the very same thing. People who latch on to the Bible and call themselves Christians, yet INSIST on having firearms to “protect” themselves, obviously do not know Jesus Christ or ANY of his teachings, or just choose to live in the Old Testament. I put my FAITH in God, and when it is my time to leave this Earth, there will be NOTHING that I can do about it, as it is part of the Plan that God has put in place for me. I was raised a Lutheran, went to elementary school in the Lutheran church, and I cannot ever remember being taught such hate and bitterness as I see from so many that call themselves Christians, in my mind, the Holy Trinity is some where shaking their heads in disgust.
If only the Jews had been as well armed as the Polish army…
If the Gestapo knocked on the doors of Jews only to be met with gunfire…by the time they got to the third door, they would’ve stopped knocking and just started shooting.
Touche.
In fact, Jews in the ghetto in Warsaw did rebel against in the Nazis in 1943 — that anniversary is coming up — and used weapons.
Patrick, the Jews in Warsaw DID have guns. The Nazis had more and bigger guns.
You really are a fountain of BS, Patrick.
But at least they tried.
I don’t really understand this insistence to lay down and die, to just give up when the odds aren’t in your favor.
Talk about an overly simplistic view of what happened to the Jewish people. You are obviously NOT Jewish, so you do not understand all of the things that transpired during WWII against the Jewish people. It was way more than removing their access to guns. They lost their property, businesses, bank accounts, family heirlooms, right to assemble, right to practice their religion, right to move around in cities, let alone Country.
There have been plenty of civilizations that massacred others without taking away guns. Any larger Army has the potential to out perform another. Americans defeated the Brits twice with smaller forces.
To say the Holocaust would never have happened shows a glaring minimization of the event. Until you understand it better, please stop using it as proof of your position.
Patrick, you are a fool with a computer.
Lets start by remembering there were Jewish people with guns fighting a resistance, as there were people in France fighting a resistance. They were not very successful because they were far out gunned. Their weapons were nothing compared to the German war machine. They held the Germans off but would never have been able to hold out forever had England, The US and Russia not been there backing them up with military equipment.
If they had been better armed from the beginning it would have allowed Hitler to call them terrorists, traitors or a host of other things and they would have lost the PR battle from the word “go.” They would have just been there trying to “overthrow a dully elected government” and we would have stood back and let Hitler deal with his criminal elements. How much longer would it have taken before we would have acknowledged the crimes he committed?
So, how come the Japanese-Americans dod not resist the camps? America did not have gun control then.
Because, like the Jews in Germany, they wanted to be “good citizens” and do as they were told.
While I have qualms about recommending a Roman Polanski film, “The Pianist” graphically illustrates the point P.O.P is making: an armed group of civilians has little chance against an army. The Jews in the Prague ghetto had guns and made a stand; the Germans responded with tanks. It shouldn’t be too hard to figure out who prevailed. And don’t presume to respond with the argument that if the Jews had tanks the outcome would have been any different.
You cannot make a comparison of the Jews in a ghetto to Americans today. It is a tactcal folley, a complete mistake. There are to many of us. I don’t care if you brougt tanks. It would take too long to work your way across America and by that time we could have support from another country in here. There are not large countries that would support us, but large enough. Again, what about the Mujahideen in Afghanistan defeating the Russian army in the ’80s? A perfect example of how an armed group of civilians has a chance against a modern army.
Joseph DePue–
Tanks? Really? And having to drive them across the country? It may have escaped your notice that there are military bases and armories in pretty much every state, and that the US government has many weapons that would be more efficient and effective than tanks: if they wanted to, they could be going drone on your ass right now. As for the mujahadeen, it’s not realistic to compare a largely indigenous guerrilla group fighting an outside force unfamiliar with the terrain–and having little personally at stake on the outcome–with a widely separated, loosely (if at all) organized group of paranoiacs/conspiracy theorists who are as likely to turn on each other as to advance on Washington. And if you expect Wayne LaPierre to lead you into battle, I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed: he’ll be busy counting his money & denying any responsibility for the chaos he helped enable.
I am curious, however, as to what “big enough” countries you expect to join your gun-nut revolution: please enlighten me–all that comes to mind initially are the Mexican and Colombian drug cartels.
Excuse me if my criticism is a little on the harsh side: I’ve been reading a book on the apparent increase in psychopathic personalities, and coming to this discussion right afterward is quite an illustration of the phenomenon.
First of all you used the idea of tanks on Jews so I responded to such. Secondly, again, I am no gun nut and the use of this name calling just goes to show that there are as many on one side that are as ill as there are on the other. If you want to have an intelligent conversation and accomplish things, that is not the way to do it. Next, I’m not going to name countries at this time as it doesn’t matter, but if you had any sense of world political climate you would realise that there are those that would see us return to a much more laisse faire foriegn policy, to a more real capitalistic economy and to a more democratic society. They have been pleading for something to happen and for us, the people, to do something. I also don’t give two craps about LaPierre minus the fact he is the only voice in debate for reasonable gun control. This “paranoia” has nothing to do with gun control, it started much before this and the “left” used to be on our side, if none of you remember. Now that the issue is gun control, the neo-liberals have started this “gun-nut” name calling and buying in to this idea and forgetting about the rest of the issues that are just as dangerous and that this is where we, the classical liberals, want to draw the line. The idea that we cannot defeat our own army, I believe, is a poor, nialistic perseption forced upon people by a statist nation. You have seen this in societies past. No one ever thought it would be possible. The French countrymen and peasants didn’t think that they would be able to defeat a real army, but they did. So did the Bolsheviks and the Cubans. In history we have learned, that missles and bombs, unless nuclear, mean nothing without ground troops. They will have to fight us one on one and there are enough of us that are prior infantry and those active duty that would quit the infanrty before killing americans. They can drop bombs all they want but they don’t own the ground until they put men on the ground nor are we really “dead” until they prove it by doing a battle damage assesment. Check into the Bosnian bombings. The UN dropped bombs for weeks then they went in and they were still met with a massive resistance. It would be obvious that any revolutionary group that hoped to return this country to its original principals would have to employ guerilla tactics and call to an established nation, probably that has sufferd at the hands of these neo-liberal foriegn policies this century, as the Mujahideen did to the americans and had given to them diferent weapons to engage helicopters. It is in no way impossible thoug and anyone who argues otherwise argues soley out of idealism, not practice.
By many accounts, one of the nations with the lowest rate of private gun ownership is Tunisia. Odd that they were able to bring down their government (and touch off the whole “Arab Spring” with NO Second Amedment!
Patrick,
In England guns are only owned by a relatively few civilians who satisfy the legal requirements made on owners. The general populace does not own weapons, and even the police usually use billy clubs to keep the peace–weapons are only used by authorities when that is the most urgently needed response. So far, I haven’t heard of England’s citizens being massacred by a malevolent government, and I don’t expect such an assault to occur in my life time. There are probably many other nations and other examples if one looks for them.
Again though, the right to own guns for self defense does not necessitate the availability of owning rapidly firing weapons with extremely large magazine capacities, or which are much too easily accessible by the public. I wouldn’t expect to easily own a tank or a nuclear bomb, just because I might suspect my government of threatening actions, or of conspiring to enslave its people–mainly because individuals owning such weapons would potentially pose a much more serious threat than any kind of government could!
Straw purchases should not be so easily made, gun shows need to be subjected to more strict regulations, and buyers and sellers on the internet need to be more honest and more constrained by reasonable safeguards. Its true that some governments may be threats to their people—but not all of them—and not often those who enforce human rights, nor those democracies in which politicians must win the popular vote in order to rule. If the President so much as mentioned any mass confiscations that President would find him, or herself, in danger of being impeached, before you or I could say, “semi-automatic assault weapons!”
You didn’t say but the English also don’t have the right of self-defense or the right to protect their property. Ask Tony Martin, the Englishman who went to prison for shooting an intruder in his own home, about that. The founding fathers declared independence not because the British were malevolent but because they were tyrants. The second amendment was inserted in the constitution to give citizens the means to defend themselves and to deal with future tyrannical governments. Britain has no constitution to guarantee rights like we do here. Rights there are what Parliament says they are and can be taken away by fiat simply by passing a new law. How nice but no thank you. In other words the British are still tyrants. Old habits are hard to break. While you and many of your anti-gun liberal friends may think the British system is superior most people in this country would disagree. The British are friends best kept at a distance. And don’t be silly we are talking about small arms not tanks or nuclear weapons.
So you say that large capacity magazines are not needed for self-defense. I disagree as would anyone who has ever had to defend themselves with firearms. And what do you mean by rapid fire? A semi-automatic fires one round for every trigger pull. That’s not rapid fire. Fully automatic machine guns that fire multiple rounds with one trigger pull are considered rapid fire but they are already illegal (except under special federal license too expensive and hard to obtain). You state that guns are too accessible by the public. You can’t be serious about that. You make it sound like there is no control over the legal sale of firearms. To the contrary, the sale of firearms is tightly controlled by the federal government through licensed Federal Firearm Dealers. You’re trying to create a problem where none exists. A semi-automatic with a magazine large enough to hold as many or more rounds than the bad guy is what you need for self-defense. In a self-defense situation you are likely to be confronted by a bad guy armed with a medium caliber semi-automatic pistol capable of firing about 15 rounds. You need at least equal firepower than the bad guy. More is obviously better. And if the bad guys start using 30 round magazines I want my magazine even larger than that. Magazine size should not be regulated.
I agree with you about straw purchases, but straw purchases are already illegal. The problem is the offender (the one making the straw purchase) often the girlfriend or a relative of the actual buyer has no criminal record and when caught usually get off with probation. Now that’s beyond stupid. There is no incentive not to be a straw purchaser. Judges have the power to be lenient. So take away that power and make long prison terms mandatory for straw purchasers. That would be an effective deterrent.
And was there any reason why you didn’t mention what is probably the biggest illegal source, the sale of smuggled guns from abroad. Surely something needs to be done about that. Maybe you didn’t mention it because there no way to tie that to lawful gun owners.
You seem to have misunderstood the anti-gun talking points on gun shows. The anti-gun crowd’s beef is with private gun sales not with gun shows. Sales through licensed dealers require background checks. Private gun sales do not require background checks no matter where they occur. Some, but not many, private sales take place at gun shows. Almost all guns sold at shows go through licensed dealers. The anti-gunners want private sales to be subject to the federal requirements. This would however include burdensome record keeping requirements, which in turn would force sellers into paying a licensed firearm dealer to facilitate transactions. This would even apply to a gift or inheritance to a relative. That’s unreasonable especially since private sales are not a problem putting guns into the wrong hands. How would you feel if the government did that with property you own like watches, cars, jewelry, cash, currency, real estate etc. It’s easy enough for bad guys to get guns illegally without private sales. Again you’re trying to create a problem where none exists. If it turns out that privately sold guns are being used in crimes then something should be done about it. Until then it’s not an issue.
This is not about controlling guns because they can be used to commit crimes. It’s about controlling people. The government’s goal supported by anti-gunners like you is to better control people by banning firearms completely. You as much admitted to wanting to ban firearms in the first paragraph of your last post in which you went on about how gun free England is so wonderful implying that America should be gun free as well. While you may not admit it your true agenda is obvious.
Most guns are never used in a crime and very little crime is committed by what the anti-gunners like to call cowboy NRA types. Almost all crime however is committed by career criminal thugs who belong in prison. If the government truly wanted to reduce gun violence it would get tough on violent criminals. Look to keep violent criminals in prison instead of looking for ways to let them go free. Another thing often talked about is keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Nothing is ever done about it though because the government is more concerned about protecting the privacy rights of the mentally ill than preventing crazy people from shooting up shopping malls and schools. To effectively keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill you first need to know who they are which would necessarily require suspending some of those rights. You can’t have it both ways.
Proposing new gun laws that do nothing to solve the problems they are intended to fix gives politicians and people like you a feel good sense that something is being done. It obscures the fact that the government is either too incompetent or just unwilling to deal effectively with the problems. The only things that will be accomplished with these proposed new laws is to hassle law abiding citizens and chip away at their right to bear arms for whatever lawful purpose.
Mr. Campbell,
Let me first say, that I am aware of the differences between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic weapon, and the prospect of potentially being able to kill fifty or sixty people in one minute still sounds pretty much like “rapid fire,” action to me. And of course my example of the 2nd amendment not allowing private citizens to purchase tanks or nuclear bombs was intended to be a silly example, but one raised in support of the fact that the 2nd amendment, like every other, was not written as something which is infallible, written in stone, or immune from necessary reinterpretation by the courts over time. Your example of machine guns now being owned only through applications for a federal license which is expensive and hard to obtain, is a perfect example of gun regulations being created to protect the public. These were famously used during the “gangster era,” when police had to go up against career criminals who used them for a number of purposes—including bank robberies and snuffing out any of their competition, (or cops and innocent bystanders who tried to interfere). So given your feeling that magazine capacities should have no limitations, and that anyone who has been in a gun battle needs very large magazines, it’s just a very rational and reasonable question to ask where you would draw the line, (if anywhere)? The Aurora shooter did buy his semi-automatic weapon legally at a dealership where he passed a background check, but our national data base is composed of wildly differing laws and requirements that apply differently from state to state, and thus his mental illness, which was not apparent in his Colorado background check, posed as no deterrent against purchasing a deadly weapon. My personal feelings about the “rights” of the mentally ill, being abused unless we keep ALL their personal information out of data bases, is that, it’s about time we changed that unwise requirement.
Gun dealerships already are expected to screen for criminal violations or records of violence that raise a red flag concerning a purchaser’s qualifications. But, sex offenders also must be registered for life, and their presence must made known when moving into local communities. And although most mentally ill people are not violent and not sex offenders, I see no reason NOT TO INCLUDE SOME of their psychiatric information out of background checks—to make sure this information isn’t deliberately used to abuse their rights in other situations where such knowledge is not truly required. It seems to me that including such information in backgrounds checks could easily become a basic requirements by the simple actions of our State and Federal legislators, while including certain provisions protecting against personal info being used for harm in any other type of background checks where they they not relevant. And if a gun dealer refuses to make a sale based on psychological records, who really needs to know about that except the dealers themselves? People may sue over claims of unfair discrimination, but people sue for many similar reasons, and in many similar instances, have already. The fact that some people will complain about a particular law, is no reason to automatically rule it out.
As far as your mention about, “guns smuggled from abroad,” That source of illegal weapons is already being challenged through international treaties which are meant to impede or reject guns being imported form other countries. (see this paste from a Wikipedia article below). And if anything, gun advocates and gun organizations like the NRA, have been objecting to and resisting the creation of such treaties based on the fear that they will also impede or regulate, State and domestic sales unfairly. but that complaint is clearly not endorsed by those who back such treaties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty
“The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs claimed the treaty would not: interfere with domestic arms commerce or the right to bear arms in its member states; ban the export of any type of weapon; harm the legitimate right to self-defence; or undermine national arms regulation standards already in place.[24][25]
“The Arms Trade Treaty obligates member states to monitor arms exports and ensure that weapons don’t cross existing arms embargoes or end up being used for human-rights abuses, including terrorism. Member states, with the assistance of the U.N., will put into place enforceable, standardized arms import and export regulations (much like those that already exist in the U.S.) and be expected to track the destination of exports to ensure they don’t end up in the wrong hands. Ideally, that means limiting the inflow of deadly weapons into places like Syria.”[26]
Advocates of the treaty say that it only pertains to international arms trade, and would have no effect on current domestic laws.[27][28][29]These advocates point to the UN General Assembly resolution starting the process on the Arms Trade Treaty. The resolution explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”
Then there is this quote taken from the website which I link after it:
“The patchwork of national laws, combined with the absence of clear international standards for arms transfers, increases the availability of weapons in conflict zones. Irresponsible arms suppliers and brokers can exploit these conditions to sell weapons to unscrupulous governments, criminals, and insurgents, including those fighting U.S. troops.”
http://www.camcode.com/asset-tags/50-quotes-on-the-arms-trade-treaty/#Logistics
So the problem of illegal gun trafficking, (if not completely solved) is certainly acknowledged and addressed.
This from Wikipedia about the British right to self defense:
Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that:
“A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.”
Section 3(2) states:
“Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of the common law on the question when force used for a purpose mentioned in the subsection is justified by that purpose.”
This abolished common law rules on what was “reasonable,” such as the duty to retreat. Thus, reasonable force can be used in the prevention of any crime or in making an arrest to:
1. allow the defendant to defend himself from any form of attack so long as the attack is criminal.
2. prevent an attack on another person, e.g. In R v Rose,[12] a young son shot dead his father to protect his mother from a serious assault, believing that this was the only practical way of defending her given his small physical size.
3. defend his property against criminal attack in the widest sense, i.e. it can be physical possessions like a watch or credit cards demanded by a mugger (where there would also be physical danger to the owner) or, at the other extreme, possession of land.
The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates into English law Article 2 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which defines the right to life as follows:
“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”
Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 codifies English case law on self-defence. However it makes no changes to the law.
I did find websites discussing what kinds of weapons may be currently used in the UK for self-defense and conservative websites naturally played them up for all they were worth. However, I am not sure exactly what all the factors which contribute to such regulations are. I agree with gun advocates who bemoan the fact that some home owners may have been unfairly convicted of killing intruders entering their homes, due to the specific legal definition of “self-defense.” And I am sure that home owners are sometimes constrained by laws that are too rigid. But gun laws differ from state to state, and sometimes the definition of self defense IS NEEDED—especially in cases when a trigger happy and paranoid home-owner shoots first and ask questions later. The news recently reported the shooting of a black woman who, according to a home owner, was pounding on his door and demanding entrance. In reality the woman only wanted to use his phone to make an emergency call, was not armed, and never stepped foot inside his house. This is a perfect example of why it is sometimes necessary to hold those claiming self defense to certain legal standards, in order to safeguard against irresponsible actions on the parts of private citizens
Since I am getting way too long winded, a few other points;
I never claimed that the British system is “superior,” I merely referred to it in answer to your false claim that no country which prohibits its citizens from owning guns, has ever refrained from subjugating those same citizens to government domination—just not true! And I also think is absurd that you are judging the current British government by referring to its tyranny during our American revolution? Just because King George was a despot and the colonies were politically abused, that says absolutely nothing about the UK and its national temperament, or about its gun laws today!
In America we also amend and eliminate certain laws through our legislature and our judicial process, but that doesn’t mean we have no established rights—nor does it mean England doesn’t either! The British certainly have recognized the right to self defense in the past, and if somehow they are not doing the same now, then I would object to any specific British gun laws which are overly burdensome and unfair to citizens. Also your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, (as I am sure you are fully aware), is not always in agreement with our government’s definition, or with the Supreme Court’s. We allows our courts to subject the 2nd Amendment to frequent judicial scrutiny, in order to determine how to justly apply gun laws today. Both your interpretations and mine, are also not necessarily written in stone.
I know there have been false reports about the numbers of illegal gun sales made at gun shows, but there are undoubtedly significant numbers of illegal purchases made at them still. And although authorized dealers are at these shows, that does not mean that they can’t just decide to accept cash, and sell weapons in the parking lot—especially when a lack of paperwork keeps those transactions secret and there are no records of any sale!
But, just consider how much paper work and legal requirements are currently needed to obtain and keep an automobile—along with purchasing expensive insurance in many states. Does that mean dealers should not keep records of sales, and keep customer information—especially when such info can be used to solve criminal cases involving the motor vehicles they sell? I have driven for forty five years have satisfied all those requirements, and not once has my car been confiscated for no good reason by the government—unless I were to drive drunk, drive it into crowds, or in any way use it as an instrument of death in some other harmful way! Perhaps where potential lethal weapons that can kill human beings are concerned, we should put up with some extra scrutiny and paperwork applied to all of them—even if inconvenient!
Finally, why are you so eager to pigeonhole me and others, who may not be in complete agreement with your understandings of the 2nd amendment? You keep referring to my “liberal friends”, and my “true agenda,” when actually I may or may not agree with my friends on several specific points, and I certainly do not advocate complete gun control! If that were true I would also be criticizing hunters and sportsmen like my dad who kept about 6 hunting rifles in a gun case inside our home? And if true, that would also ignore many of the points I have been clearly making, which would absolutely NOT be agreed with by any person wanting all guns confiscated and/or legally prohibited!
When discussing the personal information of the mentally ill with Mr. Campbell, and how it might be used in background checks, this is what I said:
“I see no reason NOT TO INCLUDE SOME of their psychiatric information out of background checks—to make sure this information isn’t deliberately used to abuse their rights in other situations where such knowledge is not truly required.” I should have instead said something like:
“I see no reason NOT TO EXCLUDE SOME of their psychiatric information from background checks—to make sure this information isn’t deliberately used to abuse their rights in other situations where such knowledge is not truly required.”
Sorry.
It would be absolutely illegal to include ANY “psychiatric information” on any kind of public/governmental document. The reason that anything “psychiatric” appears on a background check is because, and only if, a person has been ADJUDICATED to be mentally deficient/insane/unbalanced, etc– that is, it is decided by a judge. And, because it is decided by a judge/court, it then becomes a matter of public record, and so is then accessible to any law enforcement officer, from local to federal, who runs a person’s name, whether it be during a traffic stop or during a background check, which are essentially the same thing. In other words, once one has been adjudicated to be insane, one cannot pass a background check. And this is as it should be– I certainly not want any of my “psychiatric information” to be on any kind of governmental/public document, unless this has been decided according to the law i.e. in court. Nor would I want the opinion of, say, one doctor, to restrict my rights. Which is why the system ensures that only when is it appropriate, will psychiatric information restrict the exercise of rights.
You are correct. Unless adjudicated as dangerous a person’s mental health information cannot be placed on any federal database. And that is the reason people like the Aurora shooter. James Holmes and others like him get their hands on guns. As long as privacy rights of the mentally ill are placed above public safety innocent people will continue to be slaughtered. You can’t have it both ways.Phony liberal politicians ignore the issue. Instead they push for new gun control laws that obviously do nothing to solve the problem but tell everybody that it will. What’s even worse is their political supporters believe what they are told.
Mr. Campbell, Patrick, and His bondservant,
It’s rather confusing where our comments seem to end up, and the fact that there are very few “reply” options listed immediately after many of our posts. It seems that we have all been mistakenly responding to comments that others have not necessarily made, or at least have not been the only ones to make. All I know is that I first began debating the worth of the ACA in regards to government powers being used justifiably in order to assure the common welfare of all Americans—as is written in the Constitution’s preamble. This Mr. Campbell was the comment you made earlier on this thread which prompted my initial response:
NOVEMBER 26, 2015 AT 4:39 PM
“And how’s that Obamacare working out for you. Everything negative predicted about it by conservatives has come true. Premiums are increasing exponentially not nearly enough younger healthy people signing up to offset the cost of older less healthy people that do sign up. The list goes on too many to list here. It’s not healthcare insurance it’s just another government giveaway program that we can’t afford. Even AARP who was one of the biggest proponents and who got into healthcare because of Obamacare is now saying they are pulling out because they are afraid the program will go bust leaving them holding the bag. . Imagine that who would have guessed. You lefties aren’t going to be happy until you bankrupt this country just like you’ve already done in the big cities. Even then you won’t stop just like in Greece, an economic basket case yet the people are calling for more socialism,”
Reply
As I said, I considered my response relevant as a tangentinal issue which had to do with the government’s right to regulate healthcare, and similarly, its right to regulate certain aspects of gun ownership, both of which involve the question of just where the government’s authority begins and ends. Am I right to assume that those who favor a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment are of the opinion that the government and Obama in particular, do not, or should not, have any authority to impose even the most moderate kinds of regulation?
Anyway, I will gladly drop this issue if the rest of you will, but just so you know, I also dispute the implication that someone with my opinion on gun regulations is some sort of Abortion fan. Your words again, Mr. Campbell:
DECEMBER 1, 2015 AT 1:20 PM
“I was not getting nasty, And I did not change the topic somebody else did, about healthcare. After responding to it I realized that was a mistake. When he wrote back I responded telling him to find another forum to talk about healthcare, He was a lib big on abortion and obamacare not me. I’m an anti-abortion pro-gun conservative.”
Robert P. Campbell
The fact is that my position on Obamacare and gun regulations, doesn’t automatically pigeonhole me as being some kind of indiscriminate advocate of unregulated abortions. Like many people I think they should be limited only to the earliest portions of pregnancy, they should be done anytime to save the life of the mother and/or the child, and that such decisions should be made by the pregnant woman’s family—not the government. And I also like the idea of parental notification, in order to determine if the family itself will advise its children and help assume responsibility if a young lady decides to keep her child. But in cases of rape, I also believe the Plan B, or Morning after pill should not be prohibited by law.
So let me point out right here Mr. Campbell that you have been complaining about others diverging from the primary issue examined by in article, which has led you to discuss Obamacare, and now abortions. So you are no less guilty of going off topic than any of the rest of us.
And again, as I said, I will agree to stay more on the topic of Hitler and Gun control if the rest of you do. But if I believe a certain topic is tangentially related to the subject of Hitler and/or gun control, and it brings up a valid point, I will not hesitate to make mention of that topic. In that respect Mr. Campbell, you do NOT have the right to dictate what I write about, or what I don’t write about, and you have been especially hypocritical regarding your own tendency to wander off topic!
But your are pro healthcare??? Am I understanding that right?
I don’t wish to debate it but I do not support Obamacare.
Oh, ok. No need to debate, because I agree!
Thank you. And It’s not that I am afraid to debate it’s just that I find Obamacare supporters to either support this for emotional reasons or, and I’m fumbling for the right words, are pointy head types, perhaps with some financial interest in continuing the law, argue for it using talking points, questionable statistics, and cut and paste references. Having a discussion with either type is like banging your head against the wall…it feels so when you stop doing it..
Mr. Campbell,
I don’t understand why conservative commenters keep repeating that liberal commenters are somehow intellectually defective for occasionally being motivated by emotions? Are you never motivated by the same? My experience when debating with those who oppose all, or nearly all, gun regulations, is that they often pounce on their opponents with anger and resentment for not immediately understanding their own points of view. When it comes to gun laws, healthcare, or any issues which might annoy conservatives, I have, (figuratively of course), had my head cut off, for merely raising minor objections which are offensive to gun rights fundamentalists. Are anger and resentment not also emotions—presumably arising from having one’s personal feelings about what constitutes the right to self-defense being challenged? And doesn’t challenging the notion that Hitler controlled his enemies by denying their right to posses weapons, immediately raise emotional contempt from those who favor setting the 2nd amendment in stone?
In most of my arguments I have tried to present an intellectual defense for what I believe in, as well as sometimes becoming emotionally invested by the seriousness of the gun rights issues that are being debated, and also by the lack of real concern which conservative 2nd amendment debaters seem to have, about an issue which involves the loss of Mall shoppers, theater and concert patrons, restaurants goers, church congregations, schoolyard children, work place employees, college student’s, political gatherers, and scores of innocent victims in any other corner of life, who lose their lives, only because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. I would like to think that anti-gun regulation proponents like yourself, also feel concerned by the loss of dozens of primary school children’s lives, and would also want to prevent tragedies like Sandy hook from happening again—yet how do you react when a mass shooting elicits some press coverage of grieving parents who have lost their first grade children to an insane shooter? You immediately attack such press coverage by trying to cast it as appealing only to emotionalism, and to the supposedly invalid arguments arising from the grief of those parents? Are you really sure that you would not desire to change some of your own opinions, after losing a child to senseless violence? Do you really think that grieving parents have no right to be motivated by the love for, and then the loss of, their own children’s lives? Do you believe that trying to do what is right, and what consequently makes one feel good, is somehow a deficient and misguided response? Are you somehow always above the fray and never motivated by doing what you think is right—and then feeling good about doing it?
Here’s the point: You have many justifiable arguments to make, and some which rightly point to the difficulty of passing effective laws in an attempt to end gun violence. But how can you judge anyone who injects some degree of emotion into this issue? How many times must I and others, be called dumb-asses or idiot gun grabbers, or “pointy headed types,”simply because the easy availability of semi-automatic weapons, ammunition, body armor, and large capacity magazines, concerns us, I know gun rights activists like yourselves are often the brunt of insults and unfair criticisms, but do you really feel that Charleston Heston’s dare to take his gun from his cold dead fingers, is not an an argument based on emotional appeal? Do you really think that when you openly insult commenters like me, that your anger and vitriol, are expressed sans emotion?
I’ll grant you the fact that gun enthusiast like yourselves know more about weapons than the typical liberal who doesn’t have that passion, and that you have legitimate concerns about protecting yourself and your loved ones from harm, but how can you put down anyone who responds to their own intense grief by simply looking around and asking if there is a way to prevent mass shootings happening, or at least reduce their frequency? When you thoughtlessly criticize those who are dedicated to finding ways to accomplish this, you only come across as cruel and disrespectful, or as someone who cannot walk a mile in another’s shoes. I hope I am right when I assume your arguments are meant to have more depth than that, and that you want your opinions to be considered with respect, just as liberals and grieving parents do. So why do you insist on coming across as such belligerent jerks? You imply that those who support regulations are only motivated by some sort of financial gain? OK then—explain the hows wheres and whys about why you hold such an opinion, and why you believe that it’s true! Then be willing to listen courteously to those who object! And please realize that we are all motivated by our human emotions to some extent, and that we are all offended when our FEELINGS about this issue are rejected without the common courtesy of being honestly considered, and when accusing their holders of making arguments that are illogical and defective simply because they might have some emotional appeal?
POP, I don’t know if I am doing the correct thing by sending this response via email to you, but I often have no way of knowing why some of my comments end up being posted where they do, and why there are usually very few “reply” options that might allow me to leave my comment there—as direct responses to another cementers remarks? Is sending an email this way, what is meant by leaving comments “above this line?” can I do this and also request receiving email notifications about others responses? Please answer some of these questions, without printing this last paragraph along with my comments above.
Peter W. Johnson
Mr. Campbell,
I don’t understand why conservative comenters keep complaining that liberal comenters are somehow intellectually defective for occasionally being motivated by emotions? Are you never motivated by the same? My experience when debating with those who oppose all, or nearly all, gun regulations, is that they often pounce on their opponents with anger and resentment for not immediately understanding their own points of view. When it comes to gun laws, health-care, or any issues which might annoy conservatives, I have, (figuratively of course), had my head cut off, for merely raising minor objections which are offensive to gun rights fundamentalists. Are anger and resentment not also emotions—presumably arising from having one’s personal feelings about what constitutes the right to self-defense being challenged? And doesn’t challenging the notion that Hitler controlled his enemies by denying their right to posses weapons, immediately raise emotional contempt from those who favor setting the 2nd amendment in stone?
In most of my arguments I have tried to present an intellectual defense for what I believe in, as well as sometimes becoming emotionally invested by the seriousness of the gun rights issues that are now being debated, and also by the lack of real concern which conservative 2nd amendment debaters seem to display about an issue which involves the loss of Mall shoppers, theater and concert patrons, restaurants goers, church congregations, schoolyard children, work place employees, college student’s, political gatherers, and scores of innocent victims in any other realm of life who lose their lives only because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. I would like to think that anti-gun regulation proponents like yourself, also feel concerned by the loss of dozens of primary school children’s lives, and would also want to prevent tragedies like Sandy hook from happening again—yet how do you react when a mass shooting elicits some press coverage of grieving parents who have lost their first grade children to an insane shooter? You immediately attack such press coverage by trying to cast it as appealing only to emotionalism, and to the supposedly invalid arguments arising from the grief of those parents? Are you really sure that you would not desire to change some of your own opinions, after losing a child to senseless violence? Do you really think that grieving parents have no right to be motivated by the love for, and then the loss of, their own children’s lives? Do you believe that trying to do what is right, and what consequently makes one feel good, is somehow a deficient and misguided response? Are you somehow always above the fray and never motivated by doing what you think is right—and then feeling good about doing it?
Here’s the point: You have many justifiable arguments to make, some which rightly point to the difficulty of passing effective laws in order to end gun violence. But how can you judge anyone who injects some degree of emotion into this issue? How many times must I and others, be called dumb-asses or idiot gun grabbers, or “pointy headed types,”simply because the easy availability of semi-automatic weapons, ammunition, body armor, and large capacity magazines, concerns us, I know gun rights activists like yourselves are often the brunt of insults and unfair criticisms, but do you really feel that Charleston Heston’s dare to take his gun from his cold dead fingers, is not an an argument based on emotional appeal? Do you really think that when you openly insult comenters like me, that your anger and vitriol, are expressed sans emotion?
I’ll grant you the fact that gun enthusiast like yourselves know more about weapons than the typical liberal who doesn’t have that passion, and that you have legitimate concerns about protecting yourself and your loved ones from harm, but how can you put down anyone who responds to their own intense grief by simply looking around and asking if there is a way to prevent mass shootings from happening, or at least to reduce their frequency? When you thoughtlessly criticize those who are dedicated to finding ways to accomplish this, you only come across as cruel and disrespectful, or as someone who cannot walk a mile in another’s shoes. I hope I am right when I assume your arguments are meant to have more depth than that, and that you want your opinions to be considered with respect, just as liberals and grieving parents do. So why do you insist on coming across as such belligerent jerks? You imply that those who support regulations are only motivated by some sort of financial gain? OK then—explain the hows wheres and whys that justify you to hold such opinions, and why you believe that they’re true! Then be willing to listen courteously to those who object! And please realize that we are all motivated by our human emotions to some extent, and that we are all offended when our FEELINGS about this issue are rejected without the common courtesy of being honestly considered, and, when accused of making arguments that are illogical and defective simply because they might have some emotional appeal?
If you are also asking me, then yes I support the ACA. Its not perfect but a godsend to those who previously could not afford to pay for their own healthcare.
But as we all know that is not the topic of this article. So unless it is somehow pertinent to the conversation I will not bring it up anymore.
The American Revolution began in a dispute over gun control when British Redcoats marched toward Lexington….. you do realize that the reason.. they won was because they fought… right. Also Gun fanatics….. really… what is so fanatical about protecting yourself and fearing goverment…. When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” Supposedly written By Thomas Jefferson..(doesnt matter if he said it or not.. it’s true).. Why would you trust a goverment to protect you if that goverment doesnt trust you enough to protect yourself…
The American Revolution, like most successful revolutions, wasn’t fought by just a group of armed citizens. It was fought by a trained and organized army on its home turf. There is nothing fanatical about protecting yourself or (within reason) fearing the government. Gun fanatics are not just people who own guns. They’re people who are OBSESSED with owning guns and with finding an excuse to use them – even if they have to manufacture such excuses. (And no, the revolution was not fought over “gun control”.)
“The notion that armed citizens are likely to fend off an oppressive government is mostly just another fantasy bubble surrounding the heads of gun fanatics” Thats the most Unamerican thing Ive ever heard. Not sure if your American or not so don’t take that to heart. When I was a child some 60 years ago I remember people like your type complaining about the Allies helping… If you are Not american. You would be speaking German right now son. What are you going to do when it happens again. Ive been around long enough to understand how it works. Educate yourself.
Thank you for providing me with an opportunity to refer readers back to my post on flag-waving: https://propagandaprofessor.net/2011/01/09/propaganda-prop-2-flag-waving/
As a gun owner, it disgusts me that you–a left-wing liberal–stereotype all gun owners as “obsessed with owning guns.” I own guns for different reasons: to hunt, sport shooting, and to defend myself, but I’m not obsessed with owning them. I’m thankful we have a Constitution to keep people like you from completely robbing us of our rights, but it’s frightening to me that educated people like you ignore the data! The bans on guns have little to do with crime, and every thing to do with the Government putting its people in check. The assault weapons ban had no impact on reducing violent crime, yet liberals want to do it again; this time permanently. In Chicago and D.C. where it is illegal to carry a handgun, violent crime is rampant. This is because when you take guns out of law-abiding citizens hands, the only ones left with guns are the criminals, and I know liberals are smart enough to realize this, so why do they still wish to STRIP American people of their 2nd Amendment right???
Wow. I counted 6 misguided and/or irrelevant catch phrases in your brief comment: (1) “left-wing liberal”, (2) “stereotype all gun owners”, (3) “robbing us of our rights”, (4) “Government putting its people in check”, (5) “when you take guns out of law-abiding citizens hands, the only ones left with guns are the criminals”, (6) “2nd Amendment right”. I’m impressed.
You know, the words guns, rifles, cannons, mortars, firearms were all in common and legal usage in 1791.
Curious that the authors of the 2nd used “arms” and not firearms.
But anyway, the 9th and 10th amendments secure our right to own firearms.
I guess I could use this opportunity to tell you to “educate yourself”,or try and pick nits about grammar or spelling,but that’s sort of bush league.When presented with opinions that I don’t agree with I’d rather deal with them honestly rather than hide behind a post made entirely of “You don’t know the difference between there and their”.In plain English,that’s crap.
So,how about this instead?
In 1776,the only “trained and organized army” on this continent was the British army.”We” didn’t have one,”we” weren’t a country.”We” were a baker’s dozen loosely allied colonies whose govts were loyal only to themselves.
There were some state militias,but “trained and organized’ would have been a laughable description of them.Their only practical experience,the only reason that they actually existed,was to fight indians.And they were only marginally effective at that.
I suppose you believe that it was some grand,trained and organized army that led to Pakenham’s retreat from New Orleans in 1815 as well.Nope.While we did in fact have a trained army by that time,the majority of Jackson’s command were civilians who bore arms under the right granted them by the second amendment.
The colonists did indeed organize and train an army. It took some time for them to get it together, but if they hadn’t, we all might be pledging allegiance to the Queen today.
*recognized by the second amendment a few years later. fify
The 9th & 10th ammendments have nothing to do with the right to bear arms.
The 9th ammendment states that nothing written in the constitution can be used to cancel ammendments to it.
And the 10th ammendment is to allow states power to have laws that are more specific to the general rights given under the federal government.
The word “arms” was cleverly used by the founding fathers and brothers because it means weaponry. ANY weaponry needed to defend against enemies foreign or domestic. Not just guns. As you stated cannons and mortars were also used.
The word ARMS included any all all weapons not just firearms or guns.
Each state regulates their legality as per the 10th ammendment.
Patrick asks “what is fanatical about protecting yourself and fearing government?” He answers his own question with the word “fear”. Fear is exactly the problem, as when we are ruled by fear we make irrational choices, including choices that fail to protect us against what we fear. Children who fear a monster in the closet hide under the covers instinctively, and it makes them feel safer but would offer absolutely no protection whatsoever against any monster worthy of the name. And a gun is even more useless against the state than blankets are against monsters.
It’s true that we ought to be vigilant against the state, but for now, at least, Americans still live in a country of “laws not men”, and the state is fundamentally a creature of law. Gun fanatics have it exactly backwards: your guns do not protect your 2nd Amendment rights; the 2nd Amendment protects your guns. And the 2nd Amendment is… a LAW. Engage with law, engage with political debate, vote and volunteer; THAT is how you protect yourself against the abuses of state power, by wielding the law instead of violence.
I don’t have a problem with confident, secure adults owning guns. But frightened people? People ruled by fear are dangerous, and more so when they have guns.
Precisely. The gun culture is built upon twin pillars: lead and fear. Both equally deadly.
And even more so when they have the power of the legislature.
Yes, the American Revolution was fought by a “trained and organized army” – and it took time to train the Continental Army from a rabble in arms to an effective fighting force. We constantly forget and ignore that it was the intervention of the French Army and Navy that made the ultimate victory possible. The majority of the allied forces that bottled up Cornwallis at Yorktown were French and not American. It was the Dutch and French who supplied the Americans with arms and powder and that foreign intervention in the internal affairs of the British Empire made it possible for Washington’s army to survive long enough to see Cornwallis surrender.
Oh come on, we all know how un-Amurrcan them Frenchies are.
They forget that many in the NE were well worn soldiers who spent years fighting. Washington and many of his men fought in the French-Indian war. They were continually fighting as they moved west. They were not simpleton farmers. They knew how to fight wars. Several in NY even went back to France and fought their revolution. I live near many important battle fields around the Hudson river so history is my backyard. My family fought and built this country since the 17th century so I spend a lot of time reading history.
One thing these nut jobs miss is the push for “gun regulations” as mentioned in the Second Amendment not an all out ban.
“A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
How many of them are active in a militia? and weekend warrior, paranoid groups do not count.
“Well Regulated” in 1789 meant “Properly equipped”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118×158517
First, it was not fought by a trained militia and you should not fear your government, I don’t know where you’re from but here in the founding documents and in the letters from Thomas Jefferson you will find that government should fear its people and not the other way around. That is when the government start to encroach on its people
Patrick, you might want to go back to school and review some history, because the American Revolution was not about gun control, it was about gaining our freedom and stopping the tyranny of England against our economy. Gun control, for crying out loud. You did attend school when you were growing up right?
Rich people convincing poor people to fight for them so they can make more money.
235 years and nothing changes.
Some of it had to do with religion also. There was a big break with the Church of England at that time. That is why we have the Church/State Amendment.
We “Gun Nuts” are as passionate about our guns as you are about your grammar. It seems that y’all think that I am endangering your lives with my guns. I would never harm anyone who didn’t try to harm me or my family. I’ve done nothing wrong…Commited no crime…but for some reason the current Goverment is wanting to limit how many rounds my gun can hold. You guys are right, I don’t need 30 rounds in my gun, just like I don’t need a car to go over 55. Its hard for me to understand the thinking of Disarmament of the Law-abiding citizen no matter Race, Religon, or Sex. However I do think that if y’all people as smart as you seem to be, would focus more on how to get the Guns out of the hands of criminals As much as you are trying to get’em out of mine. WE all be a lot better off.
GunNut,
You do understand that cars are not specifically designed to be lethal weapons whose primary function is to kill animals or other humans don’t you? So the point is not to eliminate anything which could conceivably be used for destructive purposes, but to make it harder for the criminals you complain about to obtain a tool that is designed especially for either for killing, or for target practice. We all know its such an inconvenience for you to have to drive at 55 and reload every 15 rounds during target practice, so we really feel for you! But could it be that criminals who can buy semi-automatic weapons capable of killing 50 or 60 people in one minute, while using 100 round magazines, would also balk at the chore of being forced to use only magazines which fire 15 rounds or less? And, what distinguishes them from you and I, could mainly be, that they are not interested only in self defense, but also in carrying out deliberate attacks on large numbers of innocent people! Why should we pick on them for that? Just think how inconvenient that must be for them?
If you find it harder to buy guns which can handle 100 rounds at a time, why would they not also find it harder? Well, at least making illegal purchases with a criminal record is against the law! so when many of them are arrested, they will no longer be on the streets to threaten people like us with 100 round magazines or 30 round magazines, or 15 round magazines. I also hear that institutions which take in those who are convicted of gun crimes, absolutely frown on letting inmates keep AR-15s in their cells–poor guys! Sure, when they get out in a few years, they can always commit more crimes and make more illegal purchases, for which they can then face additional jail time for. But alas! you will be forced to walk right into a gun dealership and easily buy a new semi-automatic rifle without needing to fear any stinking cops, or even the prospect of more jail time!—How unfair can life get? just what is the government trying to do to you?!!
Bro,
It’s not hard at all for the “bad guys” to get 100 round mags cuz they have almost unlimited access to black market products. So now me and my friend are not able to buy these products as easily, but the bad guys can! The only thing you accomplish by disarming citizens is lowering the chances of a bad guy being stopped before he can do a lot of damage in a shooting! If you think about it, if a bad guy knew that he was going to go into a mall and “preform” a shooting (for lack of a better word) that was filled with people carrying sidearms, the likely-hood is that some just wouldn’t do it, or others would be stopped before a ton of people were killed. There was a story about a man that went into a mall to preform a shooting, a guy with a sidearm saw the guy pull a gun out of his coat to start shooting everyone, and he killed the guy before the murderer fired a single shot! Just saying. . . .
Bro,
First of all, how do you know ALL bad guys have UNLIMITED ACCESS TO BLACK MARKET PRODUCTS? And anyway, can’t anyone seeking to buy black market products find access to them? Couldn’t you or I do so if we wanted to? So then, that fact really nullifies any chances of preventing death and injuries when attempting to stop criminals and the insane people from buying guns–right?
Funny, but millions of background checks have been done in recent years, which means millions of red flags were raised after examining the data from all of those bad guys who have unlimited access to guns—What? I guess that’s why they tried to buy them from a registered gun dealer anyway–come again? Very few of those checks resulted in prosecutions for sure, but what about those that did? Did they get themselves in trouble because they were too lazy to take the safe way and purchase 100 round clips from black market dealers, or did they just want to risk taking a background check for the thrill of it?–well it takes all kinds to make a murderer right?
The point we so often overlook is that when millions of background checks are run, how do we really know how many people who were rejected, were not ultimately hindered from eventually buying a weapon and doing something very bad simply because they encountered resistance from the system? I don’t have any figures handy but I would bet, out of millions, a fairly large number of the charges stuck, and people who shouldn’t have guns were prevented from having them. And tell me—how do we really know what number of horrific attacks were prevented when there is no real way to quantify crimes that weren’t done? And, as far as sick people being deterred by the knowledge that many people in a mall or elsewhere, have guns, couldn’t it be the case that insane people don’t give a damn anyway if they are already nuts enough to try and commit mass murder? How about suicide bombers, or all those who kill themselves after doing their dirty work? How much does the instinct for self preservation really sway them? Maybe yes, maybe no, but either way we are just speculating, and speculation is not the best thing to base laws and gun policies on.
I recognize all the roadblocks and obstacles in the way of truly preventing large numbers of mass shooters form doing harm, and I certainly won’t stand in your way if you need a gun to defend yourself or your family. But you are applying a chain saw to butter, and creating overkill by seeking unlimited ways in which to prevent literal overkill.
Tell me with a straight face how most break-ins involving armed burglars or any other kinds of bad guys, will not be decided until either you or them, fires 100 rounds? Its like you want to use a race car to go drive down the block and buy a loaf of bread–just because you damn well want to! And if you happen to run over anyone or wipe out on the way, well that’s just the way it is!
We all want certain products and things, but we don’t really need many of them. And when having them causes necessary risks to others, why shouldn’t the government provide for the common welfare, and maybe prohibit ordinary citizens from racing their funny cars down the main street of town, or doing what was done in the past, and strictly regulating machine guns? Think about it!
First of all stop quoting things I didn’t say. I never said they ALL had access to black market products, I simply said “they” as a general statement. Take all the gangs and mass murderers, they pretty much all have a access to it, and if you say other wise your not thinking smart. Now that’s not saying that every burglar that breaks into a house is involved in black market trade, but as gun laws get tighter and tighter, those rates will continue to rise. And NO, that doesn’t nullify anything because you and I are law abiding citizens, so we wouldn’t buy anything through the black market. So what does that create criminals with guns, and law abiding citizens without them. Kinda unfair don’t ya think???
Alright nothing in your next paragraph makes sense to me, thats not trying to be nasty, just honestly don’t understand what your talking about.
And we don’t know how many shootings were stopped by having armed citizens, but there doesn’t have to be a chart to show when it comes to human life. Imagine if in the example I gave, a close relative of yours was present, and had that man carrying in the mall not been there, he/she along with 20 other people would have been shot dead or seriously wounded. There is no chart needed to tell the tale, human life is human life!
I will give you that sick people will not be deterred by the fact of armed people in a mall. However not everyone that preforms shootings, or is a suicide bomber is sick. And the ones that are, when they start shooting or bombing or whatever, people that are there if armed could eliminate the “bad guys” before there full destructive capability could be fulfilled. It’s not speculation to say that some MAY be swayed, and it’s definitely not to say that many times those wishing to do evil could be stopped before they could finish the job. I’m not saying this would happen every time, but it might be that someone who is carrying, saves the life of one near and dear to you!
I’m not sure I understand your question about armed burglars and 100 rounds, so if you could possibly restate it that would be nice! Next should it be the governments job to decide what we do and don’t need, I don’t think so. That sounds very communistic to me, the government coming in and saying “Alright doesn’t look like you need this or this, and come on, do you really need this!?” Not there place at all. When looking at the phrase “Providing for the common welfare” you have to look at what the people meant when they were writing this. What did that mean to them? How far can you go, riding the phrase “the government is just providing for the common welfare”???
His bondservant, Here is a paste of what I responded to:
“Bro,
It’s not hard at all for “the bad guys” to get 100 round mags cuz they have almost unlimited access to black market products.”
Yes, technically I did not include every exact word in your statement. My mind probably didn’t take note of the words”at all,” and instead read what you said as “for all.” So I was wrong. But what if I change my comment into something more accurate like:
“Bro, how do you know it’s not at all hard for “THE BAD GUYS,” to get 100 round magazines. Cuz “THEY,” have almost unlimited access to black market products?
You are still referring to a collective group called “THE BAD GUYS,” And claiming, “THEY,” have ALMOST UNLIMITED ACCESS TO BLACK MARKET PRODUCTS” So does your use of the words “the bad guys,” refer to a specific segment of bad guys, like the red haired bad guys, the Italian bad guys, or the gang member bad guys, or are you referring to all of them? You got me on the fine print, but you still made basically the same statement I claimed you did. Is “ALMOST unlimited access” to black market products, completely different than “unlimited access?” Not much in the final analysis!
Yes, if those who shouldn’t have guns, cannot access them as easily when taking background checks, they may turn to the black market to get them. My point is–so what, that has always been the case, and still millions of red flags have continued to be raised by background checks. And while very few of these are denied, when you consider millions of background checks, even .05% amounts to 500 denials for each of those millions. and if only ten percent of those, such as 50 mass shooters who could each have killed dozens of innocent people are stopped, I would say the effort isworth it.
Another point is that, since private sellers aren’t required to do background checks, and may actually not fill our state forms, (even though they are supposed to), background checks are not being used nearly as much as they should. And all kinds of buyers, Not only gang members and mass murderers, but also those with histories of mental illness and domestic abuse, may be getting essentially a free pass.
Then there is the fact that law enforcement is already going after the black market, and gun traffickers. So isn’t the point to also reduce those guns by large amounts, while continuing to try and close loopholes that permit private sellers not to issue background checks, or to get away without filing out proper state paper work? You and I and most people are not law breakers, but no one can say for sure of every licensed dealer who is supposed to file the proper paperwork, may not also be dealing on the black market themselves. According to a PBS Front-line documentary that I linked for Mr. Campbell, that is done much more often than we might want to think.
Another point I made is that even knowledge of facing background checks will not necessarily deter someone whose intentions may be destructive and/or criminal. If millions of background checks are done in a few years time, then that means that millions of red flags also had to be raised by them. So are criminals, the insane, or domestic abusers, just stupid, or do they get a thrill form submitting to a test that they know they cannot legally pass? Yes most of those red flags do not result in denials, but, why do dishonest purchaser not anticipate what will happen if they are subjected to a test? What about the 500 that are turned down—are they just deluded to think their reg flags would not be noticed? Perhaps that is the point I made, that you didn’t get? And, In the very least, this means that the oiur background check system is very flawed.
You are right that we don’t always know if mass shooters would have been stopped by a good guy with a gun, but there have been very few documented cases where such confrontations end positively. And often, an armed citizen only hurts him or herself, and causes more injures to others in crowed areas. But isn’t it Ironic that you apparently want the benefit of the doubt where a good guy with a gun may is concerned, and I want the benefit of the doubt for background checks or other ways that the system might better screen those who might want to cause harm? We are both wanting positive outcomes based on our personal faith concerning the best ways to accomplish them?
Actually I see nothing wrong with an armed, but plain clothed policeman, or some other sort of armed guard in our schools, who might possibly be able to repel an armed assailant. I don’t think kids would be traumatized if his weapon is kept out of sight and if he is dressed like the rest of the faculty. I also think it would be a good idea to build safe areas in each classroom, or several throughout a school where children and teachers could take cover. But I balk at the idea of unlimited open, or concealed carry laws in every corner of our everyday lives. I think anyone who takes a gun into a bar, no matter how sane or well schooled, is NOT truly being safe. In some of the dives I have been in, that would be like voluntary suicide or risking unavoidable trouble. It’s debatable if every suicide bomber or mall shooter is truly mentally ill, but some would probably back down and give Themselves up. However, I doubt if a few armed citizens would usually create that outcome, rather than someone else, who quickly summons police or other armed authorities?
About armed burglars and 100 round magazines—I have talked to several gun advocates who claim they must have that ammo capacity to safety defend against home intruders? I am not opposed to keeping a carefully stored weapon at home to repel a home invader, But my God! In most break-in’s or domestic assaults, I just cannot imagine a scene where a homeowner has to fire all of 100 round before effectively defending him or herself? Sure an intruder may kill him or her before they incapacitate or kill him. But either way the outcome will be decided with much less shots fired than that!
I appreciate your feeling that the government should not be able to tell us what we need and what we don’t, and in most cases it doesn’t. But my feeling is that possessions which pose potential danger to the public, may really need to be regulated for that very reason. The reason an automobile must be purchased with certain requirements, or be subject to new license and registration each years, as well as be driven by someone with sufficient eyesight, as well as a number of hours of real behind the wheel training–let alone be subject to local traffic violations, as well as, in most states, carry liability insurance, is simply because it is a product that can potentially cause great damage or harm, to life limb and/or property. Another example is the fact that the paint used in households to cover our walls, can no longer contain lead–simply because lead posses serious health hazards, so there again, its simply a good idea that the government should regulate the kind of paint we use.
We live in a society where we have the right to own and use most of the things we want, but there are certain products like semi-automatic weapons which are increasingly used by mad mass shooters, who recognize them as efficient and potent killing tools. So, why shouldn’t the government make damn sure that as few of them as possible get into the wrong hands?
Even if we are free to use some weapons and are responsible and knowledgeable about them, I think we should never be given complete freedom about which of the most damaging ones we use. So Pardon me if I point out that semi-automatic weapons need to be regulated in ways that deter madmen from using them in whatever way they want. We all need some regulations and will never attain unlimited freedom anyway!
I just read 2 of your diatribes from last week directed to another.It’s hard to respond to anything that you write for a number of reasons. You jump around from one thing to another and then back to the one and on to another. And you don’t communicate very well. You babble on and on but say very little of substance.You use faulty logic and draw conclusions based on conjecture. It appears that all you know on this subject comes from biased sources. You often provide links to these sources as you did with the bogus Bloomberg report which is probably the basis for a lot of what you say is going on. One thing I want to challenge you on. You said that often.armed citizens hurt themselves or innocent bystanders in crowed areas. Nonsense. Where did you get information from? The NRA and several national police organizations keep track of armed citizen encounters with criminals. .The NRA actually has statistics. All are in agreement that guns in the hands of good guys save innocent lives, not as you imply take innocent lives. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts .
Mr. Campbell,
First, for you to criticize me for writing a diatribe is like the pot calling the kettle black. You have repeatedly insulted me and directed me to post in ways that satisfy your own ideas of what a comment is! The difference is that, I admit that I am passionate about my beliefs, and I do not automatically discredit anyone who injects dramatic tones into their comments–with the possible exceptions of Charlton Heston, and Wayne Lapierre!
Some of my comments to His bondservant, made use of sarcasm to rebut things that he said, in the similar way that he used sarcasm to comment about those who desire improved gun regulations. But with him also, I let him know when I agreed with some of his points–a concession I have never received from you.
The basic theme in your last comment, is once again composed primarily of insulting my writing style, rather than commenting on the points I made. I would prefer that my remarks should not be met only with ad ahominem attacks, but with some honest disagreements with statements I make, and which you could challenge with honest comments that explain why you disagree. Sorry, your opinion of my writing style and my motivations has nothing to do with debating the issue of gun regulations, or whether they are merely contrivances used by governments to gain control of their people–as the topic of this thread disputes!
No doubt I may sometimes not express myself clearly, but I honestly strive to make my points clearly understood, even after the inevitable hostile responses you make to them. Yet you continue to accuse me of pasting entire articles to make points, and of never expressing my own opinions–an incredible falsehood if I ever heard one! I’ll let readers of this thread judge for themselves whether either of those absurd claims are true—claims that lately that seems to take up way to much of your commenting space, frankly!
Back to the topic at hand—I have made concessions and have admitted that not all of the articles on either side of this debate may tell the complete truth. I have been waiting for you to at least agree to the same.
About the fact that many armed citizens are hurting themselves and innocent bystanders when using their weapons in crowded areas—here is one good source that dispels many of myths put forth by gun advocates. I am just providing the link, so that once again, I am not accused of merely quoting an entire article for my puposes:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
Let me add that this article includes 51 links to various corroborating website which are easily accessible with the numbered hyperlinks listed throughout it—even though I know you probably don’t approve of comments that appear in Mother Jones. But let me ask you why in the world you consider your mention of the NRA and “several noted police organizations,” as sources which comprise truly reliable and unbiased information, whenever they use the “statistics,” which are confirmed by the NRA? My link to Wayne La Pierre’s comments as well as the audio clip of that statement on YouTube should clearly drive home the point that his comments can change with the wind, and thus make no sense in regards to the complete policy of hostile resistance that he promotes today? What is that but an example of faulty logic and confusing evidence that changes with anyway the wind blows? To quote the NRA as a back up for your opinions about Defensive gun uses is really nothing more than another example of the chicken guarding the hen-house–if there ever was one! That’s the point I tried to make by pointing out that partisan motivations frequently abound in Senate hearings and congressional investigations! And if one examines fact checking websites and organizations, one can see that conservative Republicans are the undisputed heavyweight champions in that arena. The term “common sense,” is often just as subjective and biased as many the talking points you describe as being undeniable “facts!”
My writings are clear and to the point. Your writings are not. If you don’t like being told about that don’t read what I say.
I don’t recall agreeing with you about anything, but in the future should there be anything you say that I agree with I’ll be sure to mention it. There, does that make you feel better now.
I addressed ad hominem attacks in another post. Go check it out.
For every website like Mother Jones there are several or more that tell a different story. I am not going to play your game of dueling websites. I stand by what I said. Most police sources agree that armed citizens do much more good than harm and I agree with that. You are free to believe what you wish. I mentioned the NRA because as far as I know they are the only one that compiles self-defense statistics taken from various sources. These statistics are posted to their website from which you can draw your own conclusion. Or if you wish you are also free to believe the statistics are bogus. At least they cite statistics, most lefty websites don’t.
Mother Jones claims to dispel myths but speaks in generalities to draw conclusions. One thing on Mother Jones is an outright lie. It says that in the last 30 years no mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens. Off the top of my head I know of several potential mass shootings close to where I live that were stopped by armed citizens. The gunmen had the means and opportunity and had started shooting but were stopped before it became a mass shooting. There is no point in talking about this any further.
Mr. Campbell,
Here is a link to a web article which debunks the idea that armed civilians frequently stop mass shootings or shootings in general:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings
I also did some investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Fast and Furious scandal which uncovered misinformed federal prosecutors, ATF officials who could not arrest private dealers due to Arizona laws that tied their hands behind them, petty infighting among members of the Fast and Furious task force, primarily used to exact revenge against Supervisor Vogel by agent Dodson, who Vogel chastised for failure to follow established procedures. and sensationalized but misleading coverage of the scandal by CBS. Attacks made against Vogel that were examined by CBS did not include his own statements, (except for several that were taken out of context) . And a consequential political motivated witch hunt intended to scandalize the Obama Administration, and to discredit the efforts aimed at improving gun regulations. The scandal was aided by gun rights advocates whose goal was to disable ATF. These included former militia member Mike Vanderboegh who has advocated an insurrection against the US government. Here is a link to a 12 page article in Fortune which details this and many other interesting yet widely unknown facts:
http://fortune.com/2012/06/27/the-truth-about-the-fast-and-furious-scandal/
Although I know you disdain the inclusion of pastes from various websites, I am providing two pastes each only one paragraph, from the Fortune article—first:
“On June 1, Dodson used $2,500 in ATF funds to purchase six AK Draco pistols from local gun dealers, and gave these to Fernandez, who reimbursed him and gave him $700 for his efforts. Two days later, according to case records, Dodson—who would later testify that in his previous experience, “if even one [gun] got away from us, nobody went home until we found it”—left on a scheduled vacation without interdicting the guns. That day, Voth wrote to remind him that money collected as evidence needed to be vouchered within five days. Dodson e-mailed back, his sarcasm fully restored: “Do the orders define a ‘day’? Is it; a calendar day? A business day or work day….? An Earth day (because a day on Venus takes 243 Earth days which would mean that I have plenty of time)?”
And the last paragraph in the Fortune article:
“Issa’s claim that the ATF is using the Fast and Furious scandal to limit gun rights seems, to put it charitably, far-fetched. Meanwhile, Issa and other lawmakers say they want ATF to stanch the deadly tide of guns, widely implicated in the killing of 47,000 Mexicans in the drug-war violence of the past five years. But the public bludgeoning of the ATF has had the opposite effect. From 2010, when Congress began investigating, to 2011, gun seizures by Group VII and the ATF’s three other groups in Phoenix dropped by more than 90%.”
The Fortune article is full of details about the case plus specifically quoted statements from the parties involved. Of course I can’t paste it all here, but I have given you a link to it, and if you are interested in viewing this case beyond the politically partisan version that the public and yourself have been given, you might want to read it.
Mr. Campbell,
Your writings are so clear and to the point, that your previous comment listed several alternate, puzzling, and nonexistent spellings of the phase, “I don’t,” and of the word “I’ll,” in your first paragraph alone? The first is spelled as, “donat,” and the second you spell as “Iall.” Isn’t it a bitch when your writing style is criticized to discredit you?
You addressed one ad hominen attack made against me by telling me that I deserved to be insulted, and generally ignored or misrepresented the rest. And if you don’t recall me agreeing with anything that you said, your memory must be failing—several instances are clearly mentioned in my previous comments and are there for anyone reading this thread to plainly see.
I have also readily agreed that various websites may have differing politically motivated accounts of the same story, and I don’t play dueling websites—unless you mean including supporting links that back up statements with credible proof, is somehow wrong?—(there you go again laying down the rules about how to comment)!
You claim you stand by what you say, but who are the “most police sources” which you say confirm your statements? And do you really think the NRA is the only authority that “compiles self defense statistics taken from various sources?” One of the articles from Mother Jones which I linked to, provides other links to more than 50 websites from which they have gathered statistics from to support their articles!
In case you didn’t notice, Mother Jones doesn’t just speak in generalities, rather its articles are crammed full of statistics that come from solid journalistic sources! And the cases you mention where mass shooting were stopped by armed civilians (off the top of your head), are not backed up with any specifically verified information. You may also have noticed Mother Jones investigates many cases like these and finds that the “facts,” used to support them by gun advocates, are seldom discovered to be based on verifiable occurrences, or accurate accounts. But you refuse to acknowledge these other views of the kinds of events that comprise your sketchy claims.
It would make me feel “all better,” if you just quit the insults and actually discussed my own findings. But go ahead–grab your marbles and storm out the door—if the statements of who disagree with you, threaten your beliefs with other viewpoint that backed up by solid statistics! You poor baby!
Mr. Johnson
You sent me the Mother Jones website which purports to dispel certain myths about armed citizens. I pointed out that this site does no such thing. The article’s conclusions are all based on conjecture not on anything scientific. It gives the conclusions of one report but does not even say who did the report. These so called myths were formed on common sense not on statistics: If I am carrying a gun and know how to use it, I am less likely to be a victim of a violent crime than an unarmed person. Also, I am more likely to stop a violent crime from happening. You may not believe that, but if you want to prove me wrong the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong, not on me to prove that I am right. I mentioned the police associations not as proof of the assumption but that some authoritative sources also believe it. Those sources may not even keep statistics and probably base their positive view of armed citizens on actual experience. And more importantly what does this have to do anything unless you are out to prove that guns are evil and the second amendment should be appealed, which I have been saying all along is your goal.
Mr. Campbell,
You are continuing to misunderstand, or at least misinterpret, my intentions. I have never said that guns are evil–how could anyone whose father was an avid dear hunter, think such a thing? However, I do agree that sometimes through sickness, greed, or resentment, many people do use guns to commit mass murders or to kill just one other person. So their actions might rationally be considered evil, and thus should not be given an easy way to express themselves. The point of wanting improvements in background checks is to note that even private dealers should be required to conduct background checks. It should also be more difficult to make straw purchases without being required to satisfy few, if any regulations whatsoever. Myself and others believe that changes in these procedures may be do-able, and may actually stop, or at least deter, some of those whose intentions are bad, or “evil.”
The Mother Jones articles which I gave links to, listed dozens of professional organizations and sources from which they derived the information in their articles. This information is rife with statistical evidence and examples of errors in methodology which often produce the misleading conclusions used by gun enthusiasts. I just don’t see how you can claim that Mother Jones’s investigative journalism is based on nothing but conjecture?
I have already agreed that there is nothing wrong with having weapons for self defense in our homes, and I also understand that there have undoubtedly been cases where citizens carrying their own weapons have accomplished positive results by providing a show of force. One thing that stopped Gabby Gifford’s shooter was the brave intervention of bystanders who physically restrained Loughner when his gun jammed, while he attempted to change magazines. Certainly use of weapons and even plain physical force do occasionally stop those who could have killed many more victims otherwise. What Mother Jones’s investigations concluded was that in many cases, armed citizens who intervened only caused more injuries or deaths when assuming that they could easily bring down a mass shooter, or some other type of criminal, with a gun, and that very few of these cases have actually produced such positive endings.
My belief has never been that all guns need to be outlawed. But I do believe that very few shooters actually require very large magazines, or the ability to purchase weapons, and cases of ammunition online, or anywhere else. And to me the idea that we need to have access to body Armour is ridiculous.
I have also tried to explain my belief that, in some of these areas, the government might play an important role in protecting the public, but you have perceived my comments as being equivalent to advocating the banning of all guns and semi-automatic weapons. I actually think that where the latter is concerned, the public could have access to them, but only after meeting some strict requirements as well as being able to demonstrate a proficient understanding of their proper use, and the responsibilities inherent in using them—perhaps in the same way that Machine guns, (or Tommy guns) have been subjected to stringent regulations. And I believe that weapons which can easily be modified to produce fully automatic capabilities should not be sold in their present forms or designs.
I know you don’t share my views and I don’t fault you for having opinions of your own, (as well as a technical knowledge of guns that is undoubtedly far superior to my own). But to me, the purpose of forums like this is to share honest disagreements without resorting to insults or accusations. And, I admit that sometimes I have been guilty of both.
But we should not have to vilify each other’s views to understand that those who disagree with us are usually just as convinced of their ideas and perceptions as we are, and consider their own beliefs as offering the most logical solutions—which can then produce the most desirable outcomes.
I’m sorry if my views have given the impression that I know all of the answers–I don’t! I just believe that we can find some practical and mutual solutions that can prevent SOME of the gun violence in America. And I also wish we could all debate this issue with less antagonism and with greater mutual respect.
I thank you for the respectful and reasoned responses in your most recent comment. That’s attitude all of us need to observe—If we do, even all of our most bitter disagreement may actually get us somewhere—that’s all!
I will try one more time to get through to you. Mother Jones seems to be saying that guns are evil and their ultimate goal of making guns illegal is obvious. That puts you in the same camp of people who want to do away with the second amendment. Conclusions in the Mother Jones link you sent me are based on conjecture, not on any sound scientific analysis. What they are doing is throwing enough crap against the wall hoping some of it will stick.
Mr. Campbell,
I have tried to be as fair and diplomatic as I can while defining my beliefs about the 1st amendment, but since you prefer to label me in the way that you want, and will not listen to anything I try to say, this entire discussion is useless.
Once again, as I have said many times before on this thread, and on many other threads throughout this website, I DON’T BELIEVE GUNS ARE EVIL. And if you cannot understand plain English there is no way to convince you otherwise. Instead of appreciating my efforts to explain, you react with disdain and self-righteous anger. Rather than seeking a meaningful and respectful dialogue. You seem to want to react with hostility and seem to need venting your ideological frustrations and using me as some sort of scapegoat that justifies your generalizing, pigeonholing, and speaking falsely of me.
My opinions about the 2nd amendment have been made known on this and on many other forums—they are that, ownership of weapons fulfills a basic human right need for self defense. I would not condemn anyone for having a personal gun in his home and defending himself or his loved ones from an armed intruder with it, or from a violent intrusion anywhere else. Where I differ with you is that I don’t think the 2nd amendment should be considered as some sort of ideological blank check that places no restrictions at all on firearms. None of our amendments is written in stone, and none of them are perfect and infallible. That’s why courts need to clarify and define their meanings at times!
The first amendment has limits, the fourth amendment has limits. Even the voting rights amendments are not beyond being reshaped and re-defined—regarding something even as basic as taking “literacy tests,” or, illegally stuffing ballot boxes in an attempt to influence our elections fraudulently. Similarly, I question why anyone really needs 100 round magazines, or so many boxes of bullets, which can pierce body armor. Rights like these, do not reflecting true intentions of the 2nd amendment, because they also endanger the public.
A system in which illegal straw purchases cannot be made so easily, or in which private sellers cannot forgo giving back ground checks, seems perfectly reasonable to me. You may interpret my opinions as implying that guns are evil, but that is your perception not mine! No matter what I say, you are going to keep denying my beliefs, and claiming that I support stripping citizens of all their guns. But, refusing extra safeguards that could make background checks more effective, does not represent a government plot to take away your freedoms?
The links provided by Mother Jones in its 10 Pro-Gun Myths article do include some of its own articles, but they also reference major publications like the New York Times, Smallarmssurvey.org, the atlantic.com, several Pediatrics websites, statehealthfacts.org, oxfordjournals.org scinecedirect.com, http://www.fbi.gov, twice! injuryprevention.bmj.com, wwwcsmoniter.com, a google article about small arms, publicdata.ncbi.nlh.gov, nij.gov/pub-sum, several Gallup polls, fixgunchecks.org, whitehouse.gov, and a host of other government, scientific, and law enforcement agencies which include relevant statistics. Many of these sites also include comprehensive statistical analysis of gun issues, as well as various newspaper and journalistic articles providing witnessed accounts of controversial shootings. You want to claim that, since many of the DGU stats you have seen, come from liberal journalistic accounts of those cases,and are not valid to you? Instead, say all of this accumulated data from researchers and journalists amounts to making biased speculation. Yet your cherished belief that the government is plotting to confiscate all your guns, take away our freedoms, and drag all out of our homes like jack-booted thugs, is not completely factual—however since this has never happened in America, your fear that it will happen some day is truly based on conjecture!
i have tried everything I can, just to make you understand what I do believe, but still you insist on misrepresenting all of it, or on getting your nasties out by slinging polarizing accusations. So perhaps you should go back to commenting on websites that reinforce your own beliefs, and admit that you already understand what someone like me truly believes. If you want some kind of self justified fight to enshrine your own erroneous opinions about the beliefs of others, then please do so! I can never convince you about anythings you don’t wan’t to believe so I won’t try anymore–does that float your boat?
Mr. Johnson
You are rambling on again, but I guess it’s hard for you not to. I’ve told you several times why NICS checks should not apply to private sales but you have not come back with anything to counter my arguments. One more time: 2. The FBI’s NICS database was set up for use by FFL’s not private individuals. 2. To require private sellers to pay to go through an FFL violates constitutional private property rights. I’ll add number 3. The federal government has no authority to regulate sales within states. Each individual state would have to pass their own legislation which if they did numbers 1 and 2 would apply. You should address those arguments or argue for a constitutional amendment.
Because you don’t understand why someone wants a 100 round magazine (an exaggeration; such a magazine would be impractical) or more ammunition than you think is reasonable is not reason enough to ban or limit something constitutionally protected. For your information body armor will stop almost any handgun round but will not stop a high velocity rifle round. So I guess you also want to ban hunting rifles. How do you propose making straw purchases harder? Unless you plan on using mind readers there is no way to tell that the person in front of you is not buying a gun for someone else.
You are making claims that you demand be accepted as truth. What you’re doing is saying the proof can be found in a bunch of publications, but it’s up to you read them all and find the proof. That’s not the way it works because the burden of proof is on you. And you have failed miserably in making your case about anything.
I have been observing this silly discussion for some time and trying to stay out of it. But I must ask one question of you, Mr. Campbell. Why do you feel that the burden of proof is on anyone who questions your beliefs?
What up POP,
The burden of proof is always on the ones trying to counter someone else’s beliefs. That’s just how it works.
Really? Cool. I believe that the moon is made of salted caramel and in order to protect yourself from crime, all you need do is carry a giraffe on your back. Prove me wrong.
I can prove you wrong by saying that you belong in an insane asylum. . . JK 😉 No but actually, when someone says something that we believe is wrong information one of our natural instincts is to say “Prove it”. Not saying it’s right, that’s just what is done. Although I have to say I might go along with the moon being made of Salted Carmel! 😉
I can’t address you by name because you did not identify yourself. Either you missed something or you misunderstood. I did not say that the burden of proof is on anyone who questions my beliefs. I said that the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim that something is factual and/or true. Mr. Johnson sent me a website link which made certain disparaging claims about armed citizens and gun ownership in general, which he held out as factual and true. I pointed out that the claims were based on conjecture, not on any scientific analysis. Since he is one making the claim then the burden is on him to prove that this information is correct. It’s certainly not on me to prove it wrong. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding you may have had
Here is what you said: “If I am carrying a gun and know how to use it, I am less likely to be a victim of a violent crime than an unarmed person. Also, I am more likely to stop a violent crime from happening. You may not believe that, but if you want to prove me wrong the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong, not on me to prove that I am right.”
You are presenting assumptions as fact. As Mother Jones (and many others, including yours truly) have deftly pointed out, these assumptions are not borne out by the evidence. So unless you can offer some proof that nobody else has been able to offer, nobody is going to believe you except gun nuts. Mother Jones did not make “claims” or conjectures; the gun culture makes claims and conjectures which it cannot back up with facts.
People have a very long history of making unwarranted assumptions — thus the need for this blog. Not so very long ago, it was considered a “common sense” truth that persons of African descent were inferior to those of Caucasian descent, and were designed by God to be subservient to them. Not only did people holding this belief presume the burden of proof to be on those challenging it, but the vice president of the Confederacy even suggested that such egalitarians were insane.
Not only is Mother Jones valued by journalists but its research is always top notch. It includes may statistics derived from research to back up its facts. And the Fortune article which I commented on made use of frequent full quotes from the real government agents who were involved. So I would ask Mr. Campbell if he believes these statements and quote are not accurate? If all the facts and quotes had been concocted by the author, wouldn’t he have found himself slapped in the face with a slander charge so quickly, that it would have made his head spin? However, since the Fortune article’s author is backed by quotes which are listed word for word, and has snot been the target of any lawsuits. Isn’t it safe to say that those quotes and statements made by the actual players, are real, accurate, and documented. Even if the first amendment protects the author, wouldn’t we still be hearing many more subsequent disputes stemming from his false claims? Yet people like me have not even been aware of the many false contentions Mr. Campbell makes—and why not!
Mr. Campbell knows he is playing a game, and doesn’t seem interested in using common and respectful discourse. People like him will always be ready with some half baked excuse that supposedly explains away whatever falsehoods they may utter, as being true.
Throughout my back and forth with Mr. Campbell, he has consistently refused to respond respectfully, even though I have made every effort to treat him respectfully. All the while, I have not really been concerned about proving anything—only in expressing views about the regulation of guns, and hoping that he might understand my points, And by the way (Mr. Campbell) I have also made many attempts to understand your comments and to concede to the ones which seem sensible to me. But, you doesn’t even seem to be interested in understanding any other viewpoints. So, I can only conclude that, as far as reason and objectivity are concerned, it’s useless for me to continue this farce.
Any readers who looks back on my comments can see that I am not guilty of the transgressions Mr. Campbell claims. Yet he kept busy lying, insulting, and attempting to win some sort of prize for his supposed self-righteousness? I hope that, by and large you will agree with me and understand most of the points I tried to make. And that they weren’t presented as surefire solutions–just possible changes in our gun laws that might eventually be made.
Mr. Johnson
I have said this several times, Mother Jones claims to dispel myths but all its conclusions are based on conjecture not solid proof. You believe otherwise, so let’s just leave it at that. If you wish to use anything that they or anyone else says to support your belief in a particular gun control measure then we can discuss it on an individual basis.
Stop whining about what you perceive to be my lack of respect. I have been very respectful but I do find you very frustrating because of your tendency to ramble. And please be specific about anything I have said that you think is untrue and I will respond.
Mr. Campbell,
You are saying basically that changing the law so that private sellers would also have to run background checks, is not legal because federal laws are not able to trump state laws—In other words your saying, it can’t be change, because it can’t be changed?
We have this this thing called Congress, which is used frequently to make, change, or modify laws. Some bills, Like the Manchin–Toomy bill, involved attempts to make only minor changes in background checks requirements—although GOP Senator Toomy could not believe it failed, (because he felt it was the most reasonable and non -burdensome bill that had ever been proposed, for gun owners). But it was eventually not passed because the NRA’s lobbyists were able to persuade a few Democrats that their re-elections would be jeopardized otherwise.
What I am proposing is that the laws should be changed so that Federal authority trumps state authority in regards to background checks. After all, if a state insists on taking its own course over something that potentially threatens human lives, the Federal government could, and should, step in. If say, my home state, insisted on giving black people literacy tests which would be used directly to prevent them from voting, and basically told the federal government to shove it, the Feds would then have a clear right to intercede, Or say, if my home state decided to allow the sale of dangerous fireworks which could harm or kill kids who used them on the 4th of July just because that state’s laws said that’s OK, then I believe in that case, it would be the governments right to intervene also, and to assert its greater authority.
The thing is, if something doesn’t work and is contributing toward situations which endanger the public, then that thing should and can be fixed with legislation. At the moment, changing the gun laws may not be practical because of the powerful grip of the NRA, but if Congress eventually is able to change, or pass a law by asserting its own authority in order to protect the public, then why shouldn’t it?
One avenue that might be taken so that the federal government’s authority prevails (over a law which recognizes only a state’s rights to regulate sales), would be to exert its power in order to regulate a practice which could both potentially, (and virtually), threatens the safety of those of of us who live in every part of the US.
likewise, If Mississippi, had had the authority to ignore federal law, by insisting that only its own state could change Jim Crow society, then the civil rights movement may never have succeeded, and black Americans might still find themselves being directly denied the right to vote. And if a state insisted that part of their sales tax laws involved surrendering one’s first born son to become an indentured servant for a particular company, then that would go beyond reasonable state authority, and that state authority then could, and should, be superseded by a federal government that does not allow a state’s right to own slaves. (as in slave labor). And, in the case of amending the Constitution, that is also an avenue that could be taken— especially if a great deal of public support were behind changing private sellers right not to conform to federal laws.
NO, I’m not arguing about discrimination, or whether it is reasonable to compare gun ownership to slavery, etc. etc. The hypotheticals I just brought up,are only meant to provide examples of where the federal government might assert itself, in order to protect the public—as they might also in regards to gun regulations–that’s all!
You say that hundred round magazine would be impractical, but that’s exactly what James Holmes used in Aurora. So apparently crazy people do considers 100 rounds magazines practical when pondering the most efficient and effective ways to commit mass murder—and that’s the point! If they are practical for those who want to do damage or destroy human life, then why should such magazines be available to all shooters—both those who pass a background check and those who do not? But you already understand that point—so why try fruitlessly to play devil’s advocate? To say its impracticable because it defies constitutional laws, is firstly very debatable, and secondly is an example of circular reasoning–(the law can’t be changed since its against the law to change it)—duh!
We are also not talking about hunting laws—we are talking about whether you or I have the right to purchase body armor over the Internet, and also, whether we have the right to purchase ammunition that can be used to penetrate body armor. So why are you equating deer hunting with having the power to kill cops who are wearing bullet proof vests? And what does deer hunting have to do with validating the rights of an ordinary citizen to purchase their own body armor?
Straw purchases are occasionally made by people who openly admit they are purchasing for another—which is already illegal. While It may be impossible to detect everyone who makes straw purchases, if buyers knows that the person they are buying for, is mentally ill, or plans to use those guns for criminal purposes, the fact that the purchaser has to provide his own ID and other personal information, as well as pass his own background check, might make him think twice about buying a weapon for a crazy person—which is a factor that MIGHT have kept weapons out of the hands of the Columbine shooters. If a responsible person makes a purchase for a (known) mentally imbalanced or violent person, then that person should be held responsible for any actions that a shooter takes. The Columbine shooters were crazy as Hell, and they were probably already known to be unbalanced weirdos by the person who bought guns for them. We cannot prevent all misuses of guns, but perhaps we can at least prevent a few of them from falling into the wrong hands. I don’t care if someone own guns—only about making them so easily available for someone who is ready to gun down dozens of victims!
About making claims that I “demand to be accepted as truth”—I have never demanded that you or any other person, accept my viewpoints without thinking–that’s just another silly maneuver you use to discredit my character. My last few post were very diplomatic and honest, so that I might be able to have my views understood by you. I never claimed to have all the answers and I have honestly admitted that I don’t—what about you?
“Proof can be found in a bunch of publications?—Good grief!! Wasn’t it you who lauded the statistics used by the NRA? wasn’t it you who referred to stories carried by the press about DGUs? Wasn’t it you who claimed that most laws enforcement agencies agree with you? And isn’t it you who uses gun advocate’s sources to debunk those of another who disagrees with your beliefs. Well, if publications really don’t provide valid information—then let’s get rid of all gun advocate’s journals. Lets quite using text books to gain knowledge about chemistry, Rocket science, history, or Trigonometry? Who cares about understanding a body of knowledge? Who cares about reading articles in our local newspapers—the news is all based on speculation isn’t it?
How are we know if Ted Cruz really exists just because the AP provides his photo and writes about what he does, or about what the weather might be like tomorrow? What about the obituary announcing aunt Harriet’s death?—ALL LIES, you say?
You are a piece of work, and are truly full of it!
POP, here is another copy of a comment I made yesterday and posted near the end of the day. I noticed that you still haven’t printed it, and, since I made some errors in the original copy which have been corrected here, please feel free to post this copy rather than the first. You can always ignore the first and post this one instead also.
Mr. Campbell,
Here is a link to a web article which debunks the idea that armed civilians frequently stop mass shootings or shootings in general:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings
I also did some investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Fast and Furious scandal which uncovered misinformed federal prosecutors, ATF officials who could not arrest private dealers due to Arizona laws that tied their hands behind them, petty infighting among members of the Fast and Furious task force, primarily used to exact revenge against Supervisor Voth by agent Dodson, who Voth chastised for failure to follow established procedures, and sensationalized but misleading coverage of the scandal by CBS. Attacks made against Voth did not include his own statements, (except for several that were taken out of context), and a consequential political motivated witch hunt intended to scandalize the Obama Administration, and to discredit the efforts to improve gun regulations ensued. The scandal was aided by gun rights advocates whose goal was to disable ATF. These included former militia member Mike Vanderboegh who has advocated an insurrection against the US government. Here is a link to a 12 page article in Fortune which details this and many other interesting yet widely unknown facts:
http://fortune.com/2012/06/27/the-truth-about-the-fast-and-furious-scandal/
Although I know you disdain the inclusion of pastes from various websites, I am providing two pastes each only one paragraph, from the Fortune article—first:
“On June 1, Dodson used $2,500 in ATF funds to purchase six AK Draco pistols from local gun dealers, and gave these to Fernandez, who reimbursed him and gave him $700 for his efforts. Two days later, according to case records, Dodson—who would later testify that in his previous experience, “if even one [gun] got away from us, nobody went home until we found it”—left on a scheduled vacation without interdicting the guns. That day, Voth wrote to remind him that money collected as evidence needed to be vouchered within five days. Dodson e-mailed back, his sarcasm fully restored: “Do the orders define a ‘day’? Is it; a calendar day? A business day or work day….? An Earth day (because a day on Venus takes 243 Earth days which would mean that I have plenty of time)?”
And the last paragraph in the Fortune article:
“Issa’s claim that the ATF is using the Fast and Furious scandal to limit gun rights seems, to put it charitably, far-fetched. Meanwhile, Issa and other lawmakers say they want ATF to stanch the deadly tide of guns, widely implicated in the killing of 47,000 Mexicans in the drug-war violence of the past five years. But the public bludgeoning of the ATF has had the opposite effect. From 2010, when Congress began investigating, to 2011, gun seizures by Group VII and the ATF’s three other groups in Phoenix dropped by more than 90%.”
The Fortune article is full of details about the case plus specifically quoted statements from the parties involved. Of course I can’t paste it all here, but I have given you a link to it, and if you are interested in viewing this case beyond the politically partisan version that the public and yourself have been given, you might want to read it.
My most recent comment to Mr. Campbell included references in one paragraph, about Fast and Furious Supervisor, (Vogel). My apologizes. The correct name of the Supervisor is Dave Voth.
@Gunnut I’m going to answer a couple of your points. You don’t need 30 rounds in your magazine, having them so easily available to people who wish to commit mass murders seems silly since even gun nuts admit its not needed. Taking the guns off the street, pretty much every single gun used in a crime is bought legally, or “stolen” from gun dealers who seem to have all the guns they buy “stolen”.
The government is prohibited from even questioning gun dealers about their inventory. Gun manufacturers are making 50 dollar throwaway guns and flooding the market with them do you honestly believe that the millions of guns made and sold this way are meant for “responsible gun owners”?
When will we learn that outlawing the possession of an item (or attempting to modify possession) NEVER stops people from acquiring and using these items?
You think it’s easy for former felons to get guns now, you wait until all guns in private hands are outlawed. Like meth.
I wonder if any Americans have machine shops or 3D metal SLS machines?
It’s all well and good to be against senseless murder (there are laws against all sorts of murdering) but inevitably locking up hundreds of thousands of Americans and destroying their lives doesn’t seem to me to be a very kind way of dealing with this issue.
Must we jerk our knees back and forth yet again??
No. It did not. Please reread American History. The American Revolution began because the British levied excessive taxes on imports and forced the Colonies to buy those imports exclusively from the East India Trading Company. The Colonies were tired of bearing the burden of supporting King George’s and the rest of the British Nobility’s lavish lifestyle with no input on the laws they were forced to live under.
There was no dispute over gun control BEFORE the War began, there were efforts by the Redcoats to remove muskets and rifles from areas they controlled, but not on a widespread basis. Read the Federalist Papers. Read Samuel Adams. Read Thomas Paine.
Rich people convincing poor people to fight for them so they can make more money.
235 years and nothing changes.
Some of it had to do with religion also. There was a big break with the Church of England at that time. That is why we have the Church/State Amendment.
Ken: Of course there was a big break with the Church of England at the time. Relationships were souring and the soon-to-be Americans were becoming more and more bitter about being under British rule, so such a thing isn’t exactly a surprise. But anti-British sentiment fueled the split with the Church of England, not the other way around, although many people used religion to further their political leanings and made it into a religious argument (it’s a pretty effective method of spreading propaganda). However, the Brits themselves weren’t overly anal about how the colonists worshipped and didn’t pay that much attention to the relationship of their church and local government.
While the existence of the Church of England was a reason for the concept of separation of church and state, it was not really a reason for revolution. It was more along the lines of “hey, Britain’s whole state-sponsored religion thing has got some obvious drawbacks, so let’s not do that, okay?” Also, “separation of church and state” is not an amendment, or even anywhere in the Constitution, but came from the writings of Thomas Jefferson.
You are absurd! The American Revolution was NOT fought because of the British wanting to “take away our guns”, it was fought because the Colonies were tired of being TAXED without REPRESENTATION, hence the Boston Tea Party and many other acts to show their disgust in the matter. There were others that tried first to get the United Kingdom to give us representation, but it was to no avail. Then they decided to organize and defend themselves when they refused to pay the exorbitant taxes forced on them. It was at that time that some of the leaders of the Colonies realized that there was no other way to end this dispute other than to revolt and become their own nation, however, those few had to CONVINCE the others that it was necessary, and that was not an easy task. Also as a “radical” Christian, you of all people should not be quoting Thomas Jefferson, as he was not a Christian, do your research, and quit spouting the propaganda that you have been fed and so readily ate up because it suited your insecurities.
Actually, he is partially correct about the Revolutionary War starting because the British wanted to take our guns. The overall cause (‘stated’ cause, many historians believe it was simple greed that caused the Founding Fathers to revolt, and the vote vs tax was just a ruse) was because we didn’t feel we were being represented, but the first actual battle of the war was fought when the British came to take our guns (because they knew a revolt was imminent). However, the 2nd Amendment itself was most assuredly crafted because of the Revolutionary War–they wanted to insure the ability of the people to fight a tyrannical government if one developed.
Futhermore the entire reason the gun statement was put as the second amendment was becasue the goverment of that time was confiscating them so that they couldn’t resist. The entire reason the goverment came was to enforce taxes. However, it wasnt untill they marched to take up guns did the spark the set off the American Revolution start. The 2nd amendment isn’t their for sportsplay. Guns or dangerous things. I have one and havent fired it in over 30 something odd years. Im tired, I feel sorry for your generation.
Once again, you’re misinformed about several things – including apparently my “generation”. (I am, alas, not as young as you seem to suppose. But thanks for the compliment.)
ha, your welcome
You mean to say “The 2nd amendment isn’t there for sportsplay.” Not “their” because that is possessive. When making points I believe it is in your best interest to use proper grammar for the sake of having others take you seriously.
I’m sure most folks simply don’t proofread before hitting the ‘send’ button. But misspellings and stupid grammar do cause one’s mind to veer.
Patrick, like all right wing gun nuts, you seem to be utterly ignorant of the history of the second amendment. I suggest at the very least that you read Alexander Hamilton’s comments about the nature of a “well regulated militia” in Federalist Paper #29, before you continue to spread completely false ideas about something you know nothing about.
I’ll just leave you with this Green Eagle, supposing that you can read, because I know you’ve never read any part of the Federalist Papers: http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Quotes.htm
RC, since we are trading blog posts here, I will just leave you with the following one of mine, the latest in a number of comments over the years about the second amendment:
http://largegreenbird.blogspot.com/2012/12/about-that-second-amendment.html
It quotes rather extensively from the Federalist papers. I really don’t give a damn whether you have the intellectual capacity to comprehend eighteenth century English, but I do rather resent your claim that I have never read the Federalist papers. It’s just one more example of a wingnut shooting his mouth off about something he doesn’t understand in the least.
I wonder if you’ve ever read the anti-federalist papers.
I kinda doubt it
The second amendment was written for “well regulated militias” Like the kind of Militia that put down Shay’s Rebellion and some of the other attempts to overthrow the early Revolutionery Government. It was to Protect the US government from it’s own citizens who would have liked to take the reins of power by force. At that time the US government did not provide arms to its militia members, they were supposed to provide their own muskets and ammo.
Thank you, Heidi, for the Shay’s Rebellion reference. It seems most “2nd Amendment” worshipers have no idea that our Constitution came out of that experience- in response to the rebels against our duly constituted confederation- strengthening the central federal government, which our constituted federation today. In short, the Supreme Court got the “original intention” wrong.
No, it was meant to enable citezens to assist the pretty much non existant army in case of invasions. Hardly what we need in the age of nuclear weapons.
That is why many towns had Armories. They kept everything in one place and opened them up as they needed them.
North America is a continent rich in resources. The British government’s interest in the Americas wasn’t simply to collect taxes from colonists.
I’ve tried to find some evidence of your claim that the spark that set of the Revolution was the British taking American guns (I’m assuming that’s what you meant). The closest thing I can find or think of was the attempt to seize American gunpowder at Lexington and Concord, but this occurred AFTER the rebellion had already started, and isn’t precisely that brazen of an act. In actuality, there was no one “spark” that set off the War of Independence. While many point to the Tea Act (and others like the Stamp Act) and the rallying cry of “No Taxation Without Representation” as the reason we declared independence, in actuality, it probably had more to do with the fact that we were already governing ourselves nearly independently, and were beginning to view ourselves as a separate nation (and at the time of the Declaration, only about 1/3 of the colonies really wanted independence. 1/3 were still loyal to the Crown, and the rest were neutral).
You know what’s really funny? As much as we squawk about “taxation without representation” we do the very same thing to our protectorates today.
You are right, the second Amendment is not there for sport’s play, it was put in the AMENDMENTS to the BILL OF RIGHTS, which by the way is NOT the Constitution of the United States, as a way to readily form a state/national militia in order to protect the nation from attacks from outside forces. The second amendment for the most part became null and void with the establishment of the National Guard, but remains to this day as it is twice as hard to rescind an amendment than it is to create one. If anything your right to own a gun comes more under the Declaration of Independence and the line “that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” I for one am not saying that our government should go into people’s homes and take their guns away from them, however, I am saying that the gun show loop hole should be closed up so that those “whacko nut jobs, or criminals” cannot just walk in off the street and purchase said weapons without any background checks or waiting period. I also do NOT believe that John Q. Public has a need or use for automatic weapons unless they are hunting humans, which the last time I checked is against most World Nations laws, and God’s law. The ONLY people who should posses said weapons are the military, and police and other such law enforcing agencies. Criminals could not get said weapons as easily if they were not allowed to be sold to the public AND not allowed to be sold at a gun show with no system of checks. They would have to go through an illegal dealer, which is easier for law enforcement to ferret out if there is no legal source for such weapons to be sold. I am just asking for some reason and logic on the issue. It was not until the Luby’s incident in Killeen, that most people knew there was a weapon that would fire 20 plus rounds without reloading. If you think about it, ever since then the rise of mass shootings as gone up because of the knowledge of just such weapons. Mass shooters do not take .45’s of .357’s with them to preform their massacres, they would not suit the job as they would only be able to shoot AT 6 people before reloading and we all know that when you have to reload you are at your most vulnerable, and therefore easier to take out. I want public places to be safe again and continuing the allowance of automatic weapons to be sold to the public will not help in doing so, at least not to my beliefs.
So you want some form of prohibition.
Maybe if we all wish hard enough, it will work this time.
Exactly. And by the way, the surest way to blow the “the Founders actually just intended the 2nd Amendment to mean that only a “well regulated militia could possess firearms” out of the water, is to point out that James Madison himself, who actually wrote the Constitution, owned firearms, as did his family, friends, etc. IF James Madison had TRULY believed that only the military should own firearms, he would have immediately thrown his own firearms in the river, as well as the firearms of his family, and demanded that ALL politicians do the same. But, that was not the case– in fact, virtually all the founders from my own state, Virginia, owned firearms– George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, etc etc. Did George Washington throw his firearms into the Potomac and swear he’d never own another one? Not hardly. The tired “only the militia should have firearms” argument is so tired, so silly, so easily refuted.
This brings up a point that I expect to address in a future discussion of the Second Amendment — the suggestion that the absence of an explicit right must imply an intended prohibition.
The problem with something not being an “explicit right” is that it could get “prohibited”. The only way to make sure something is never, ever, prohibited is to enshrine it as an explicit right. Therefore, the right to own firearms is an explicit right. Pretty cut and dried.
Hardly. There is no explicit right to own horses either. And they were more crucial than guns. The fact that you believe guns should be so enshrined does not mean the founders did.
“There is no explicit right to own horses either”
Exactly. Just as there is no explicit right to own poisonous snakes in a city, or rare, endangered species of monkey— which is why both have been outlawed, at least in my city. That’s exactly my point– if something is not enshrined as a right, it can be outlawed. And, by the way, it is illegal to possess a horse inside city limits, in my city. Exactly proving my point. Thank you.
“The fact that you believe guns should be so enshrined does not mean the founders did.”
No, the fact that they enshrined it in the 2nd amendment DOES mean they did.
Besides, we’ve far outgrown being limited to what the founders wanted. That was over 200 years ago. What I want is a lot more relevant to my own rights, frankly.
Reread your last paragraph, and you will see that you have contradicted your own argument.
Whether one believes that the specific wording of the 2nd Amendment, enshrines our indisputable right to own guns or not, where does it say that we have an UNLIMITED right to own guns without any prudent regulations on their use?
The founders did not live in a world where the personal acquisition and ownership of semi-automatic weapon with 100 round magazines, could threaten the lives of dozens of citizens in a large gathering, (like a movie theater)—so why should we assume that they would oppose all prudent forms of regulating such weapons?
Many things, such as the poisonous snakes you mentioned, are outlawed or regulated, primarily because they pose a threat to public safety. So aren’t rapidly firing weapons with enormous magazine capacities, just as capable, (or more so), of posing a threat to human life and welfare, than a poisonous snake–especially when discharged at large gatherings or in public areas? Why should we assume that the right to own guns, precludes the possibility that guns need to be regulated? If the founders had indeed been able to look into the future and see the problems posed by such weapons of mass destruction, would they have clung to the irresponsible attitude of allowing any or all of them to be publicly owned and used, without ANY heed to the inherent dangers they pose?
It’s true that regulating guns will not end all gun violence, but it’s also true that outlawing poisonous snakes will never eliminate all deaths due to poisonous overdoses. Does that mean that the ownership of snakes should be completely unregulated and enshrined under law? Should you or I set one of them loose in a pubic area, or could we bring them into any situation, without any heed of the danger they pose? The argument that many things are hazardous and that therefore, none of them should be regulated, is short-sighted and irresponsible—obviously!
Patrick the USC refers to the government that our founding fathers created, you are saying that our founding fathers new government was the one taking guns? Some type of gun control DOES NOT EQUAL OUTLAWING ALL GUNS! Maybe you are old and hard of hearing so I felt the need to CAPS for you!
If our founders could see the power of guns these days they might not agree with allowing ALL TYPES of arms. In their day they had freaking one shot muskets for crying out loud and 30,000 americans were not dying each year from muskets brandished by fellow americans.
look foward to following you 🙂
This patrick person is full of misinformation and known debunked lies spread by those in America who want to portray Hitler as non Christian when both prior to worldwar 2 and during it many American pastors said Hitler was fighting for the lord and the US should ally with him against Communism..
Hitler didn’t ban prayer at all. Prayer was in fact mandated by the Nazis. The Nazis were a Catholic organization that considered Christianity to be the bedrock of the Aryan culture.
This Patrick Person is also 60 years + and pretty much believes he knows everything already. My favorite part of his post’s are the parts where he tells others to educate themselves, after he has just finished trying to state opinion as fact. I love that there are so many people out there that truly don’t understand the difference between fact and opinion. It’s hard I know but you know I guess it’s better than speaking German….. For the record, I believe gun control is important for many reasons, however is also a tool many governments use to keep their citizens docile. I also dislike Germans. Thank you.
“I also dislike Germans” 1) Hitler was Austrian, not German, 2) not every German was a Nazi, 3) Lots of Nazis were Polish etc and not German, 4) Fascism was invented in Italy by Mussolini, and Hitler (an Austrian) adopted his ideas, so it wasn’t even a German idea. 5) Jews in Germany considered themselves good German citizens to their dying day, and many had served honorably and well in the German army in WW I. My (Jewish) grandfather was awarded an iron cross as a physician in the German army in WW I but he was tossed in a concentration camp in 1939. It was only because he had friends int he US that he was allowed to leave Germany, but not before frostbite in the camp had damaged his fingers severely enough that he could never perform surgery after that (he became a general practioner in a small town in NY State).
@Ed Hass And there were more than a few foreigners who were active members of the Nazi party, there were several units in the Waffen-SS that contained volunteers from other nations. I used to know a Dutch member, but as he’d tell you honestly the biggest reason many supported the NSDAP was because it was seen to be saving Germany from the disasters caused by the treaty of Versaille (and it’s followers) and the great depression.
And the story of WWI veterans getting mistreated like that was not uncommon, at first they were all invited to return and then treated as criminals at best. I’m glad your grandfather was one who got away.
There is considerable lack of knowledge regarding the lead up to the second world war, and general ignorance as to what went on. It took years of personal research to learn as much as I do as little was taught beyond incidents such as the night of the long knives. Which were a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.
Hitler was a NOT a christian. He can declare himself any religion, and what’s better than to hide under a false image of being christian and “pretend” to be doing the work of God. Violating all ten commandments and calling yourself a christian is the same as eating meat and calling yourself vegetarian.
Don’t believe everything you hear and take them as facts please.
Do you consider yourself qualified to determine who is a Christian and who is not?
When someone claims to be a mathematician and cannot add two plus two, then the claim is, most certainly, false. Hitler certainly was not a Christian because he was not a follower of Christ. His actions revealed his true nature and it doesn’t take miraculous insight to know this fact.
Who gets to decide what constitutes being a Christian and what does not?
Hitler self-identified as a Christian, that’s good enough for me.
I know plenty of preachers and priests who call themselves Christian and their followers call them Christian but when they molest little boys they arent following the teaching of Christ. I do believe that that is called sinning and Christ asked “Who among you is without sin” So evidntly no matter what your sin happens to be you can still remain a Christian. That includes Hitler.
Slave owners who beat their slaves daily, also proclaimed their Christianity loudly and often, and “good honest Christain preachers” defended slavery from the pulpit every Sunday. Lynch mobs, good Christians all, burned crosses on the lawns of terrified neighbors, dragged them out of their houses for looking at a white woman funny, convicted them without trial, and hung them from trees, and these lynch mobs were considered the pilars of good Christian communities. The purpose of the Crusades was to inflict genocide on Moslems–it backfired, as the Crusaders brought back Arab scientific and matehmatical writings and art, and sparked the Renaissance–without which the Protestant Reformation and Europe’s Industrial Revolution would never have occurred. The Catholic priest Tormquimada had Jews and gypsies and others stretched on racks and used thumbnails to force their convesrions to Catholicism. lest one think only Catholics commitetd abuses, remmeger that slave owners and lynch mobs were Protestants. Also, the witch trials, conducted by Protestants, were patrticularly fiendish – anyone could accuse anyone they disliked of being a witch, and the mere accusation was pretty much proof of guilt and an automatic death sentence–toss the accused in a lake. If she swims, it is because she is a witch and the devil is saving her life, so burn her at the stake. If she drowns, well she may have been innocent but she’s just as dead. The conductors of these witch trials all believed themselves to be good Christians. Hitler claimed he was just continuing these cherished brutal Christian traditions. Are youi saying they weren’t Christians, either–none of them? The history of Christianity is riddled with examples of cruelty and violence.
Hitler could claim to be Christian his whole life, do what he did and on his deathbed ask Jesus for forgiveness and go to Heaven.
Yup he was Christian for sure.
According to SOME living amongst us, all you have to do is stand in a church! Bingo! Instant Christian! And be sure to wave an American flag when you do! Really helps to have photographic proof. (Doesn’t matter what you do later- spit on the sidewalk, molest a child, set up a phoney ‘charity’ and rake in the bucks, dishonor the military dead, attempt to prevent someone from voting…) You’re a CHRISTIAN!
Of course Hitler wasn’t a Christian. So few Christians really are. Didn’t stop him from claiming it.
Last time I checked, the only ‘requirement’ to being a Christian is to accept the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ/Messiah. ‘Accepting Jesus as your Savior’ makes you a Christian; following his teachings appears to be optional.
Just as an aside, the Ten Commandments are not a Christian construct; they are part of the so-called Old Testament. That would be the same set of writings that many people who claim to be Christians insist were ‘wiped out’ and replaced by the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. (A claim that they seem to conveniently ignore when looking at the requirements of Leviticus, where they seem to cherry-pick which admonitions they wish to follow.)
Part of what you said is true, in order to be a Christian you must accept the fact that your a sinner, that Christ died on the cross to save you, and that He rose from the dead three days later. But if you are one of those people (not you literally, in general) that claims to have accepted Jesus into their hearts, but just lets it sit there, and does whatever they want, murders, rapes, steals etc…then you are not truly filled with the Holy Spirit. So yes, but if your doing that, your not truly saved.
People, I am lovingly coming to you to let you know that just because someone claims to be a “Christian” does not make them a follower of Christ. There is a difference between a “religion” & one who seeks Christ’s forgiveness, redemption, & love wholeheartedly.
Religion is what you are speaking of when you speak of those who do wrongfully in the “Name of Christ”. Religion is man doing what he/she thinks they can do to reach God (or, at times, “become God”), whereas, God has offered His redemption freely to all who truly believe.
Here is a better explanation : John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
To graciously refute a previous response, quoted from JustMyWords – “Last time I checked, the only ‘requirement’ to being a Christian is to accept the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ/Messiah. ‘Accepting Jesus as your Savior’ makes you a Christian; following his teachings appears to be optional.”
This is what the teachings of Christ say: James 2:14 “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.”
You are correct about the religious nature of the Nazi regime.
Hitler a Christian? He was raised Catholic, as was Himmler, but they both had long since rejected any form of Christianity by the time the Nazi party existed – ever heard of the Ahnenerbe? That was basically the Nazi “bureau of the occult”. What form of Christianity (except modern hillbilly American neo-nazis who call themselves “Christian”) had any teaching remotely like the Aryan race?? The stories of Atlantis, were they from the Bible? Was the swastika ever a Christian symbol? The beginnings of Nazism were largely rooted in the Thule Society, a totally anti-Christian occult secret society. How about the Runes used by the SS – Christian? Totally occult. Hitler also promoted the old Germanic, Teutonic gods in place of Christianity, saying that the latter was weak. You people really believe Hitler was Christian?? Come on!! Just because Hitler may have USED a claim to being Christian, to be accepted by a nation of mostly nominal Christians, doesn’t mean he had anything to do with being any sort of Christian in reality.
Regarding Hitler being Christian. I suggest you acutally read Mein Kampf and see his references to his avid belief in Christianity. What some researcher wants to make up about the SS is no more proof of their UNbelief in Chrisitianity than what the Masons do in their rituals. Just remember that the German Army’s Motto was “Gott Mit Uns”
you can take shots at Hitler all you want but Europe would be in better shape today and not on the verge of becoming an Islamic republic if his vision had succeeded. Bet they wish they had a strong leader like him now.
“Take shots” is an interesting choice of words. Unfortunately, you may be right. There are people out there (in more countries than one) who wish they had a “strong” leader just like him. Hmmmm…. let’s see, NAZI regime or “Islamic republic”? For my part, I’m glad the choices aren’t limited to the two.
You lose the bet. Most of us are sane, you know.
And the claim about Europe being on the verge of becoming an Islamic republic is so ludicrous I have difficulty believing it was meant seriously. How exactly would that happen?
Sorry, but do you even know what Europe is? You certainly seem to have never been here.
Tony probably never left Little Italy and could not find Europe on a map.
If you frequent British news sites, and read their comments sections, you’ll see Tony’s kind of attitude everywhere. There is a rather prevalent belief that Muslims are “taking over” the UK (very similar to the attitudes towards “Mexicans” here in the US). And that’s not even touching the kinds of things people say at football/soccer matches. As an American dragged into their world in the past couple of years (my fiance is English) I was absolutely shocked how blatantly racist and specifically anti-Muslim Brits can be, and just how many racists there are. We have a stereotype about Brits being polite people who wouldn’t dream of saying anything offensive, but they’re not too far removed from their colonial days. So Tony’s comment? Yeah, until I re-read it and realized he said “they”, I assumed he was British.
Of course, this doesn’t make his comment any less ludicrous, but it also doesn’t mean he’s never been to Europe.
It’s not even unique to the UK as far as Europe goes Renee. Anders Breivik’s 2011 massacre in Norway was part of his protest against perceived Muslim influence in Europe amongst other things.
Wow, Tony. You’re even stupider than Patrick.
Wow, racist much? You must have an IQ in the negatives, because you’re absolutely full of crap.
No doubt, Tony is one of the same ones who say “foreigners should just keep their mouths shut about Uhmarica!”
@Tony
Shots at Hitler? Strong leader?
St. Peter’s hairy toes!
Are you even a compassionate human being to make such an absurd statement?? Or are you just a religion based, Fear mongering propagandist?
I’m not claiming the more loose gun laws would have stopped the mass murder of Jews, but this article does leave out important facts. In the updated 1938 German gun laws, a Jew was totally prohibited from owning a weapon. While the laws on Germans were loose, the same cannot be said about the main victims of the German regime, the Jews.
True, and I did point out that Jews were prohibited from owning guns under NAZI rule. But as I’ve stated elsewhere, I don’t believe this was a key in the development of the Holocaust, or that anyone could have prevented it merely by having more citizens (Jewish or otherwise) own guns.
I understand your opinion, but obviously Hitler himself had a different opinion of the situation than you did. This is proven by his statements in the above article. Historical precedents do tell us something. There is a reason why totalitarian regimes remove guns from their enemies, a quite simple one. People who have no means to defend themselves can usually be pushed around more easily and more comfortably.
On a side note, in my opinion, the title of your article is misleading. There is no actual “myth” in regards to Hitler’s gun ban. He actualy DID take away guns from a particular group of people. And whether you agree that it “enabled” (Although, I’m not really sure what kind of definition of enabled you are using in this particular instance) him or not, it really cant be argued that it didn’t make it easier.
I would say that the main reason totalitarian regimes often remove guns from their enemies is because they can. Jews weren’t just prohibited from owning guns; they were prohibited from doing a lot of things. The notion that Hitler enacted a gun ban is itself misleading, to say the least. For Jews, the prohibition from gun ownership was just part of a total package of oppression; it wasn’t something that was singled out as being particularly vital to maintaining that oppression. Regardless what Hitler said on the topic, it appears that he didn’t consider it terribly crucial, or else he would have imposed (as many people believe he did, hence the word myth) a gun ban on ALL citizens. Does prohibiting citizens from owning guns make it easier to control them? I doubt if it does to any significant degree — it just prevents adding more blood to the mix. Successful rebellions are generally carried out not by just armed citizens but by armies (although admittedly the distinction may be slight in some circumstances.) It seems to be the latter to which Hitler referred, since he mentioned “conquered Eastern peoples” rather than the citizens of his own nation.
Jews were stripped of their citizenship, no gun control was needed. Only citizens could own guns and those gun control laws were already in place in 1928. Nazi’s didn’t come to power until 1933.
James, we have the most well-armed populace in the world, yet they do their master’s bidding out of fear and propaganda. They are “pushed around” quite nicely to support the upper crust in charge. It’s called “usueful idiots.”
James, the “myth” is that Hitler was allowed to get as powerful as he was because he took guns away, not just from Jews, but from everyone in the country; that the reason he wasn’t stopped was because no one (no one AT ALL) had any means to fight back, despite an eagerness to rebel, and if only they were allowed to keep their guns, they would’ve fought against him. That’s simply not the case. We have this image of a populace living in complete fear, like 1984 or V for Vendetta, who would stand up if only they had the power to do so, but that’s not really how it happened. It was more like when you’re on the highway going a little faster than you should and a cop pulls up beside you. You become afraid for a moment but only because you’re worried about getting caught doing something wrong. This was what life was for most Germans. Hitler’s tyranny wasn’t a reality in their world, and his government was pretty much like any other to them.
Jews are no “victim” of anything except their own greed and wish to subjugate European people to their whims and their fake gods. Germans have never had any duty to even allow jews to live in their country, and sure have no duty to allow jews to rule them or run their finances.
No comment, Bob. Just letting you hang yourself with your own verbal noose.
Oh, isn’t this lovely? A jew-hating freak. Do the whole world a huge favor, Bob and kill yourself. And do not under any circumstances, reproduce. I find it hard to believe that a woman would go anywhere near you anyway, so I’m not too worried about that. Women are repulsed by bigots.
And the Bob Fairlane’s of the world are just ticked off that the Jewish people consistently rebuild and have a long history of surviving after devastating oppression. That the Jewish people refuse to just roll over and take their bigoted and racist beliefs.
Why were jews in Germany? So many white people cry about the “holocaust” (the deportation and work encampment of jews and other slags exploiting Germans), but why are they so sympathetic to non-European, anti-white people who have time and again, and even now, declared that whites, especially Germans, are “goyim” or cattle to serve them?
No comment Bob. Just letting you hang yourself with your own verbal noose.
I agree with you that even with guns in every household Jews would not have been able to stay their deportations, but I also don’t believe Hitler was a gun-grabber.
Now Dianne Feinstein…there’s a gun-grabber, and *not* a “nazi” – as far as I know 😉
See reply to Bob.
I re-read your reply to Bob…
But nowhere in it do you explain why the Germans had individual muffles installed at Auschwitz.
You watched and examined and weighed the evidence in the videos I recommended, and yet you still support the standard Holocaust “narrative” in its’ entirety?
Including Irene Zisblatt and her story of defecating diamonds?
Of her escape from inside Auschwitz’ “gas chamber”?
Do you approve of what Congressman Tom Lantos did in misleading the American people into war in 1991?
As a veteran of that time I don’t take that escapade lightly. You did watch “The Last Days of the Big Lie”, right? And saw what Lantos did?
The cremation industry even today says it takes 1 hour for every 45 kilos of body weight. (referenced in the first video) so…
…were the Germans somehow able to override the laws of physics and thermodynamics during the war?
It’s hard for me to take Holocaust deniers seriously, and those videos have already been thoroughly debunked. But maybe I’ll have a go at them myself in a future column.
P.O.P….it’s bad enough that you have all these misinformed right wing trolls infesting your board. Must you allow these vile, disgusting, sub-human anti-Semites to post their filth as well?
My initial attitude was that even they deserve to have their say. But after opening the door to them invited an avalanche, I decided to put a lid on it.
You are a vile, disgusting animal. Bob. You are not even human. You are just a steaming pile of hate.
No Jew or Jewish text has EVER declared that ANYONE is “cattle to serve them”. The word “goyim” does not mean “cattle”. It means NATION. Even in the bible, God refers to the Jewish people as a “goy gadem”…a great nation. Goyim mean nation, you idiot. You get your “information” from propaganda hate sites and phony propaganda versions of the Talmud. Either you are a liar or you are incredibly stupid. Likely both.
@Bob Fairlane
Invest in an actual translation dictionary of a language before trying to state what a word means. Or you could try asking a person that speaks the language before assuming you ‘understand’ the meaning of words.
What a shame. Hitler took the rights away from a group of people. These rights included bearing arms… Then they were slaughtered. Anyone who thinks that guns wouldn’t have made a diffrence needs to think about this… what if the Jews had guns… and the Nazi’s didn’t… and the Nazi’s pulled that shit… what would have happend… would it have made a diffrence? Of course it would… Never trust a goverment to protect you who doesnt trust you enough to allow you to protect yourself!
Again, you seem to be conflating an armed citizenry with an organized, trained and well-equipped military force. I am not aware of any evidence to support the assumption that armed citizens can effectively resist an oppressive government. I have seen, however, a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Many Americans want to believe that owning guns makes them invincible. It doesn’t. There’s always somebody with a bigger gun.
The redcoats were a well trained armed military force… they lost
Yes. They were defeated by another army. Not by just peasants and bankers packing handguns and hunting rifles.
Patrick I would like to note that the “rag-tag bunch of plow shears wielding good guys vs. red coats” fantasy you have of the American Revolution, is one of just that, fantasy. Be sure to thank the French next time you celebrate your freedom from Britain.
P.O.P. im sorry but i have to step in on your last comment.In the battle of Lexington and battle of Concord they (the Colonists) were just armed citizens.All of history tells us that a determined people will eventually win out.(forgive any grammer errors Im not collage trained)
My impression was that a major reason for the British army’s loss in America was their absurdly long supply lines, added to the British government’s insistence in running the war from London. When marching orders and basic supplies are months in transit, you’re somewhat at a disadvantage against an opponent who can re-supply themselves locally.
I have a question. When we talk about Jews being able to arm themselves, I am assuming this is would be the period between 1932 and 1940? Has anyone looked at what kind of guns, availabilty and cost. In other words whether or not Hitler did or didn’t allow them to have guns, would there have been an availability that was affordable to actually make a difference. I assert that you can’t compare it just as a yes or no argument.
Someone has seen ‘The Patriot’ too many times. If Mel Gibson says it’s true, then it is, isn’t it?
I would like to make a comment about the notion, repeated often here that “The redcoats were a well trained armed military force… they lost”
After 75 years of fruitless war against each other, the English and the French had essentially devastated their own armies, and severely damaged their economies. In this circumstance, the Americans took the opportunity to strike against a moribund fighting force, and the French people crushed their own government. This is so often the case with revolutions. The Russian revolution took place after the Russian army had been mangled during World War I, the Irish revolution came after World War I had done the same to the British army, and the Chinese revolution came after World War II had effectively destroyed the Chinese army.
Absent the special circumstances, I do not believe the American revolution would ever have succeeded. The British military of 1725 or 1825 would have won easily. The savaged British army of 1775 lost.
By many accounts, one of the nations with the lowest rate of private gun ownership is Tunisia. Odd that they were able to bring down their government (and touch off the whole “Arab Spring” with NO Second Amedment!
If gun laws didnt make a diffrence… why did hitler take them away from the Jews?
As I’ve said before, it was just part of a broad package of oppression. Why single it out? Jews also were prohibited from holding public office, and eventually from practicing any profession. Why not focus on that instead? As far as gun-toting citizens, there was at least one famous example of a German Jew taking up arms against NAZIs. It led to a little thing called Kristallnacht — which, far from impeding the holocaust, accelerated it.
That’s right: the killing of the German diplomat in Paris by Grynszpan is what set off the uproar Nov. 9, of ’38. You’d be amazed how often that isn’t mentioned when the story of “Kristallnacht” is reported upon. Wonder why…
But the Paris shooting was the second 1930’s incident of gun violence by a Jew upon a German political figure:
Gustloff was shot in Switzerland by Frankfurter in 1936.
Grynszpan -whose actions in ’38 precipitated “Kristallnacht”- is rumored to have survived the war.
You assume that the Jews or any others in Germany had closets full of arms and boxes of bullets to take. In the 1930’s in the depths of the depression most people would have sold any unnecessary possesions long ago just to get something to eat. My mother told me stories of them selling the drapes, glasswear, clothes, basically everything they had to keep from starving to death. If there were any guns TO confiscate they would have been few and far between.
The Nazis took the guns from the Bolshevik commies. Patriotic Germans kept their guns.
If Hitler hated Jews, then why were there Je2wish Nazis?
Hey guys!
While you argue with one another our government is gaining tyrannical momentum. You can deny that liberals are trying to gain a stronghold by protesting everything that freedom is, but it does nothing but help them tighten their grip. It does not matter whether Hitler said these things or not, it is the philosophy he used as do others. “What Luck for Rulers That Men Do Not Think” is a truism no matter who said it first and it also explains why every great civilization has been conquered. The belief that something unimaginable cannot happen is exactly why it does. The signs are all around us and history is screaming warnings at us.
Wake up …. you are being boiled like a frog!
The pendulum needs to swing the other way NOW,
I’ve already noted that Hitler’s most potent weapon was neither the bullet nor the ballot — nor the suppression of either. It was propaganda. And the rhetoric his accomplices spouted was eerily similar to that being spouted by today’s right-wing polemicists demonizing “liberals” (as in effect the NAZIs did). That’s not an observation I make lightly; I long ago grew weary of people conjuring up the specter of Hitler every time they encountered someone they didn’t like; I’ve already devoted an article to that topic. But it’s hard to ignore how Limbaugh, Beck, et al seem intent on mimicking Goebbels. And their words in turn are obediently parroted by the masses. If indeed there are frogs being boiled, that’s the oil they’re stewing in.
As an information security engineer, I’m going to give you these points to think about.
1) If we allow to operate powerful tool such as vehicle, why not firearms. vehicles can do just as much damage or perhaps even more than firearms if you are creative enough. If anything, I would make everyone go through real driving school with booklet record tracking and spend literally 4 figures before getting just a license. Make it like Germany today. Wouldn’t that be safer for society? Go figure.
2) Power hungry people likes to take away power from honest people. Government workers are people too. They are not more or less capable than normal civilian like us. A fat cat that feeds with green by their own authority means power that is evil.
3) We don’t need a government this size to automate or efficiently improve and reassure our infrastructure and safety. LADWP hired High School grad with 0 electronics background to work in Water and Power. What a great example, go figure. Don’t argue that they’re private company, they are subsidized by the government running monopoly for the government.
4) Guns kill way less people than cigarettes and car accidents. Sure you’re tire of hearing this, but u don’t seem to get it.
5) Bad guys never respect the law. If you think that sweeping guns out of street including walking every single home and start sweeping all the firearms from civilians will stop criminals from importing other true “assault rifles” (select fire weapon), which civilian never have in the first place, will make it a safer place, then you are delusional. Just because the government wants to tie people’s hand doesn’t mean the criminals will give you their wrist to cuff them.
6) If you are uncomfortable and do not understand firearms really well in a free country where 2nd amendment is clear, then it is your own problem, irresponsibility that you have not to learn about it. Just because you’re uncomfortable and believing in mythical facts doesn’t mean that you can infringe others’ freedom. That’s right!
7) Swiss seems to have a good no criminal record compare to us. If anything, we need to educate our children better, which public school should not be funded by government, but should allow competition for kids to compete by getting into a quality school. This will make tuition cheaper, cheaper books, better quality teachers, and enrich this country where people are sitting on their ass too much relying on government to do practically EVERYTHING. You perhaps maybe forget how to breath right now as we speak.
8) Government suppose to be peace keeper and service its people, not the other way around. When you have to be fear for the police and what the government is doing to you, that’s when you know that country is running by the largest Mafia. Look at all unconstitutional war that we were in, everyone of them after the WW II. U.S. government is also the largest arms dealer. They don’t know how to sell anything else better either. Is that all justified?
9) Last but not least, you assume that people owning guns are not civilize to believe that owning guns will increase injuries and death. If anything, it is bunch of “durb durb” that intoxicated their mind with any kind of substance and operate machinery such as firearms and vehicles that causes these tragic events. I’m not going to blame criminals because that’s what they are and it is our job to put them away.
With all this said, you should really understand the world better before screaming out loud saying that I’m not young and I know what had happened. Of course you don’t because you believe in the government so much that you are so blinded by the real facts that we are all humans, and humans make all kinds of mistakes. Some even make evil decisions. Take more time to think about things before you go “ANTI” gun to people.
Hoo boy. Don’t people EVER get tired of regurgitating the same soundbites over and over? All the bits of misinformation you’ve churned out here have already been addressed in these pages. I, for one, don’t intend to repeat myself ad nauseam.
I point and laugh at people like Al.
Same here, and I live in Canada where civilians aren’t allowed to own military grade weapons. Our rate of gun related homicide has been steadily decreasing the past few years. In 2011 it was 87 gun related homicides nationally. We have gun registries, even if PM Harper is talking about removing the long gun (rifle) registry currently. My entire region of BC (the Thompson/Okanagan/Shuswap or Central Interior if you wish) has had only 2 shootings the past few years.
So hmm, over 11 thousand gun related homicides or 87 gun related homicides. Which sounds better?
P.O.P. so as not to repeat yourself ‘ad nauseam’ you’re invited to leave this board. Additionally, your ‘I’ve got an answer for everything’ said here approach to rebuttal is annoying and ridiculous. And furthermore you accuse posters here of many many things that you yourself are in violation of. Primarily in this late post of yours where you employ the typical ‘liberal (socialist)’ tactic of accusing your opposition of doing the very thing you (they) do. As exemplified in this statement you made above, ” ‘the rhetoric his accomplices spouted was eerily similar to that being spouted by today’s right-wing polemicists demonizing “liberals”….I long ago grew weary of people conjuring up the specter of Hitler every time they encountered someone they didn’t like;’ ” When you don’t agree and want to discredit someone simply accuse them of being ‘right-wing polemicists’ who demonize “liberals”, as if liberals need demonizing (they don’t need to be demonized as they do a fine job on their own of being demonic).
Must be fun being you.
Anyway, you may go now! Bye. I’m sure there are at least a thousand other boards you can write on to make a nuisance of yourself, troll that you are.
Well, my posts, and particularly this one, have elicited some curious comments, but none so strange as the suggestion that I forgo being a “troll” on my own blog! In any case, if you’ve read any of the material I’ve written in these pages at all, you know that I never attempt to discredit anyone by just referring to them as “right-wing polemicists”; I discredit them by presenting solid facts that contradict their claims. The fact that they might be considered “right-wing polemicists” isn’t what makes them wrong; it’s just a motivation for their choice to believe in fallacious arguments. You’re on the right track by pointing out it’s a common propaganda tactic to accuse others of what one does oneself (I’ll be discussing that in the future), but it isn’t primarily “liberals” who do it. (And if you really do equate “liberalism” with “socialism” then there’s probably not much point in even trying to reason with you.) Yes, I really am tired of people playing the Hitler card; and yes, I can’t help noticing that many people who do employ some of the same rhetorical tactics that the Third Reich propagandists did; this is not the same as saying that they are themselves like NAZIs — which is the kind of thing they often say about “liberals”. It’s irony. Look it up.
It is ridiculous when people claim Hitler was a Christian. That is about the same as saying Satan is a Christian. How ill informed can you be to the doctrine of Christ. Let’s find out: Christ said, “a house divided against itself cannot stand”, and the Bible refers to the Jews as “God’s chosen people”, so if Hitler was a Christian why did he not only ignore Christ’s words, but also fight against God’s people. Toattempt to use pictures of Christmas trees and church officials in the same room with Hitler to make the case that he was a Christian really becomes problematic when you look at his actions. Call him just about anything you want, but he wasn’t a Christian my friend.
You may have a different concept of what constitutes a Christian than Hitler did. And it’s difficult to say how sincere or committed he was to Christian beliefs. But he did have them. And he was not,as many people claim, an atheist.
Would you kindly provide a link to your articles which blast the Hitler card being played endlessly against GW Bush? I am no fan of either of these two men but am curious as to your balance of opinion.
The Hitler card is being played endlessly against Bush? Really? I rarely see it at all these days. It did happen with a fair amount of frequency when he was in office. (“The difference between Hitler and Bush is that Hitler was elected”, etc.) But that was before this blog was launched. But I’ve touched on it here, noting that the comparison was also overblown for Bush — though there was at least some factual basis for it, as both Bush and Hitler were (different types of) right-wing extremists. Comparing Obama to Hitler, on the other hand, is not only overblown, it’s not even in the right solar system; it betrays a fundamental ignorance about Hitler, fascism, “liberalism” AND Obama.
It’s also off-track to focus on my “balance of opinion”. Opinion is not what this blog is about. That’s not to say it’s 100 percent opinion-free; that (in my opinion) is not even possible. But the meat of these discussions is fact, not opinion. I suppose I could provide more “balance” to the facts. But there are plenty of people out there doing that already — which is why this blog exists in the first place.
Reading the Second Amendment, it seems to me everyone who is in and who plans to join a well regulated militia should have the right to bear arms.
Folks are free to disagree with this interpretation, of course. I hope that those who do disagree really take it to heart by buying a nice pistol for their newborns, loading it, cocking it and putting it in the infants crib so that the baby might have his or her Constitutionally protected right to bear arms and personal safety protected. As the child’s grip strengthens, so will the gene pool of the United States.
By the way, I’m planning a follow-up in the near future of my previous post on the Second Amendment.
Brian Woods, that is quite disgusting and certainly not the way human beings need to deal with animosity. It doesn’t matter what side of the fence you are on. This is where proper guidance and aid comes in handy, not genocide. I really hope you don’t actually feel this way, and that this thought was a slip of the tongue. Especially when it comes to children, no matter what their gene pool is.
Leave this board?? IT’S HIS BLOG! IT’S HIS BOARD!!!
Holy crap you’re stupid. I mean…it’s astounding.
This reminds me of the time my sister barged into my room and told me to get out. Ridiculous!
Indeed, there was no need for the Nazis to pass a law like that, because the earlier Weimar government had already passed gun registration laws. When I asked Cramer about his reasearch, he said, “The laws adopted by the Weimar Republic intended to disarm Nazis and Communists were sufficiently discretionary that the Nazis managed to use them against their enemies once they were in power.” In other words, they didn’t need to pass additional laws. The Nazis did pass a weapons law in 1938, but that only added restrictions to the previous law, especially for Jews and other “non-citizens.”
I presume the national guardbreaking down doors and disarming citizens in undamaged areas after katrina was a good thing?
Um… let’s see… mice have lice, but lice do not have mice. There! I can play the non-sequitur game too.
very informative and entertaining thread, thank you P.O.P. i’m a republican “fiscally”, not religious, love guns, but i really love reading arguments from people who don’t understand the definition of fact. just from this thread i can see most people can be easily manipulated and misguided by some well placed misinformation disguised as facts. which is in fact how the christian religion began, along with most other divine deity based religions.
It looks like I DO need to address Holocaust denial in the future. Not because it in itself is worth giving any attention to, but because it makes use of some significant propaganda techniques often put to better use.
Attention Holocaust deniers: Sorry, but you don’t get to use this forum as an arena to wallow in your own excrement — there are plenty of other places where you can do that. (And chances are I’d still feel that way even if I hadn’t personally talked to Holocaust survivors.) I’ll discuss your pathetic disease in the future. Until then, kindly crawl back under the rock whence you came, where you may salivate over your laughable “proof” to your heart’s content.
Since I got sent this (for some reason, as I’m not “sharpnickelz”) I must give ya a heads up:
>> “sharpnickelz” said: ” I believe that Hitler meant what he said in the quote “History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” regardless if any sort of gun control was instrumental in Nazi Germany’s conquering of Europe or not. It rings true that a […]
Then you (POP) said: “You’ve articulated the position of much of the Second Amendment crowd quite nicely, and it may even have some relevance to the Founders’ intent. But it does not alter what the Second Amendment actually says.” <<
The "quote" of Hitler is (you might know) from the fantastic "Table Talks" collection. And it is fantastic. In it, there are other alleged "Hitler" gems like:
"As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs [….] goes straight off into a concentration camp."
I've seen that one before a couple times.
But then right below that damning "Hitlerian" rant is this:
"At harvest time we will set up markets at all the centres of any importance. There we will buy up all the cereals and fruit, and sell the more trashy products of our own manufacture. In this way we shall receive for these goods of ours a return considerably greater than their intrinsic value. The profit will be pocketed by the Reich to defray the price of the campaign. […yadda yadda yadda] Why should we thwart the longing of these people for bright colors?"
Right. That's Hitler talking. He's spending time on "bright colored" textiles. That's "believable".
.
Just so ya know… what is and is not believable and more importantly, tenable.
:
my all time favorite response to those people is: so where exactly did all those jews go then? mass alien abduction?
They won’t answer. They’re too busy asking how so many bodies possibly could have been buried and/or burned. (The answer is, it wasn’t easy; it took some very focused evildoing.)
It seems German state has already addressed the issue of “holocaust denial.” If you question the official version of the holocaust, you are sent to prison in Germany. Ernst Zudel was sent to prison for researching the Holocaust and proving that certain elements of the official story were nothing but baseless propaganda. If they are imprisoning people for questioning official dogma, there must be something wrong with the official story. Of course, “holocaust denial” is a boilerplate propaganda term. It is disingenuous and insinuates that anyone who questions the “official story” of the holocaust is somehow mentally defective. What I know for certain, is that anyone who throws you in prison for asking questions about the Holocaust is worse than a Nazi.
Verbalvandal, While I do not agree with the policies of countries that would prohibit speech questioning whether aspects of the official account, if you will, of the Holocaust is entirely accurate, to conclude there is necessarily something wrong with the official story simply because there is a ban is absurdist reasoning. One ugly aspect of humanity – and I don’t think any group is exempt from having elements of this – is that we have consistently persecuted people in groups other than our own. The Holocaust marked a zenith in that type of conduct, and so some governments passed laws to try to stop that type of thing from snowballing again.
As far as your assertion that killing 6 million, or 20 million, or 2 million, or whatever number of people the Nazis killed – and, as you know, they killed millions of people – being worse than putting a couple of people in prison, well, we all have our values. Many people, including myself, would say you need to have your head examined.
Your closing statement is particularly absurd when one considers that the Nazis, too, threw people in prison for asking questions. And they tortured them for asking questions. And they murdered them for asking questions. You know this. And because you know this, you, Verbalvandal, should be in prison.for the safety of the rest of us. Question away, but you statements lead to the inescapable conclusion that you are a sociopath.
“What I know for certain, is that anyone who throws you in prison for asking questions about the Holocaust is worse than a Nazi.”
Worse than people responsible for 50 million deaths? Man, they really are bad. And by the way, people go to prison not for asking questions about the Holocaust, but for lying about it.
I believe that Hitler meant what he said in the quote “History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” regardless if any sort of gun control was instrumental in Nazi Germany’s conquering of Europe or not. It rings true that a conqueror would want his subjects to be unable to resist.
Without the 2nd Amendment, all other Amendments are worth little more than the paper they are written on. “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good” – George Washington.
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
It is plain to see that America’s founding fathers considered being able to stand up and defend one’s rights a center piece in a free and open society. We have a right to form a militia and stand up against our government if they (for whatever reason) disobey the constitution and the checks of the democratic process. This nation was built on revolution, on the idea that to be TRULY free, one must be able to fight for that freedom, to have a way out when the walls of a crumbling government come crashing down. In this democracy, we are essentially representatives, is for and by the people. For that to be upheld, the 2nd Amendment is the foundation. It is no coincidence that the 1st Amendment lays the foundations of freedom (speech, religion, press, assembly) and that the 2nd Amendment immediately after gives the way in which the first is even able to exist. Written words are meaningless, only through our unalienable rights are those words given substance. Or you know…we could take our governments “word for it”.
You’ve articulated the position of much of the Second Amendment crowd quite nicely, and it may even have some relevance to the Founders’ intent. But it does not alter what the Second Amendment actually says.
As is usual with gun nuts’ comments;
The George Washington “quote” is a complete fabrication which apparently was created in the 1990’s
Despite some time spent searching, I was never able to find a citation for the Hamilton quote. It allegedly comes from the Federalist Papers, but none of the many (right wing) sources I found for it mention where in the Federalist papers it is supposed to be.
The Franklin quote is essentially true, but has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the second amendment.
On the other hand, Hamilton, in Federalist Paper no. 28, directly addressed the notion that the militias existed to protect citizens from the government. He dismissed that notion as a specimen of mental illness.
The amount of disingenuous blather from the right about the second amendment is overwhelming; particularly when the Founding Fathers made their intent so clear in a document available for free to anyone.
I believe that Hitler meant what he said in the quote “History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” regardless if any sort of gun control was instrumental in Nazi Germany’s conquering of Europe or not. It rings true that a conqueror would want his subjects to be unable to resist.
Without the 2nd Amendment, all other Amendments are worth little more than the paper they are written on. “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good” – George Washington.
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
It is plain to see that America’s founding fathers considered being able to stand up and defend one’s rights a center piece in a free and open society. We have a right to form a militia and stand up against our government if they (for whatever reason) disobey the constitution and the checks of the democratic process. This nation was built on revolution, on the idea that to be TRULY free, one must be able to fight for that freedom, to have a way out when the walls of a crumbling government come crashing down. In this democracy, we are essentially representatives, is for and by the people. For that to be upheld, the 2nd Amendment is the foundation. It is no coincidence that the 1st Amendment lays the foundations of freedom (speech, religion, press, assembly) and that the 2nd Amendment immediately after gives the way in which the first is even able to exist. Written words are meaningless, only through our unalienable rights are those words given substance. Or you know…we could take our governments “word for it”.
I believe that you consider every point you make as being absolutely true, and it may even appeal to basic logic that, dictators would like to see their people disarmed so that they can’t resist being controlled. However, the message I get from 2nd Amendment advocates, about the immanent dangers to our people, rest on some very dubious assumptions about the way things currently are, and how unscrupulous government might try and control our American citizens.
In a country like ours, it is very unlikely that the military, and/or, the government (or) its people, are going to lay down and let any deranged leader take complete control of our lives. I just don’t see how (for example) the leaders in the pentagon, and/or most police forces in our country, would unquestioningly accept the authority of a deranged President wanting to control every aspect of our lives? We have a system of shared power, along with checks and balances on those powers. So any President with such a scheme would face impeachment, and be expelled from office faster than you can say, “Second Amendment.”
Personally I think it obvious that our founders recognized the value of being able to defend ourselves with a gun, but I don’t think that such a guarantee comes with a blank constitutional check, authorizing anyone, or any group to possess whatever kinds of firepower they want. Do we really need tanks, or flamethrowers or handheld grenade launchers to defend ourselves? And, would we overlook the likely scenario that a bad person with these kinds of weapons could be immensely aided in carrying our any type of crime they desired, including an act of terrorism–just by being allowed the unchecked and unquestioned right to own any kinds of guns, or the accouterments that come with them?
On a lesser basis, I just don’t think it should be as easy as it is, to purchase an assault weapon by circumventing legal requirements at gun shows or on the Internet. The government should be actively promoting sting operations to arrest, charge and prosecute, those who ignore basic measures to restrict sales to excluede those with criminal backgrounds, or, who are just considered mentally unstable. And, why in the world should an average citizen be allowed to purchase body armor as well as 100 round magazines over the internet, as many mass shooters have actually done. Also, why not form a national registry, and seek to make gun regulations and preventative measures standard throughout our country?
I have owned and operated motor vehicles for over 40 years, and the fact that I must register them, obtain an operators licence, insure them, and renew my license every few years, and even submit to physical qualifications like wearing corrective glasses, has never resulted in personally losing my license. That will only happen if I consistently drive recklessly, or deliberately get stinking drunk before getting behind the wheel. And, in this case, just as in the case of restricting guns and certain aspects about them to average citizens like me, the issue at hand is not government domination, or an attempt to deny common sense. Rather, it involves the fact that restrictions on our rights under the second Amendment, and many others, are designed in order to assure public safety—(PUBLIC SAFETY)! Something I am certain the government has a right to do, and, is authorized to do in order to assure the common welfare of us all!
As always, those who turn this American debate into a matter of freedom against tyranny, totally forget that sometimes our rights must be modified to protect the common good and safety of all our citizens.
As of yet, those who preach about suspicion and government power grabs, have not once provided me with a single reasonable scenario of just how a government take-over would happen in America, or even if such a usurping of power is possible under our system. Over all, I think the supposed dangers of being prevented from owning (any) gun one wants, are simply unlikely fantasies, rather than a problem that’s vital for us all to fear. We can own personal weapons without going to extremes, and we can let our common need for public safety overrule the fears constantly dished out on us by groups like the NRA!
Of course, laws can effect the behavior of people—otherwise, why not get rid of the police force itself, or disband the military, or even deep six the entire court system? However, we would not even last ten minutes if we had to drive through downtown Manhattan during rush hour, without the aid of stop signs and traffic lights. In a Democracy like ours, sometimes rules and regulations are good for us all! And by providing them, our government is carrying out its Constitutional responsibility to provide for the common welfare of all of us! Rugged individualism may sound good, but historically every positive action undertaken by civilization depends on some degree of cooperation from us all!
I think what all the gun “rights” people don’t seem to realize is that all the US Government needs to do to “take over” is to shut down water and electrical power and transportation on the interstates for about 3 weeks, let the US Citizenry fight it out with each other over what remains on the shelves in their pantries and grocery stores until their ammo runs out, then drive through the bigger cities with tanks and offer food and water in return for complete compliance. After all the chaos of neighbor killing neighbor and the resulting thirst and hunger the citizens will pretty much do anything. Stockpile away….if the Government wants to finally take you over, it will. In fact, they’ll use YOUR guns and let YOU do part of the job by forcing you to defend yourself against your starving neighbors. Point of fact, the answer isn’t stockpiling guns, but actually getting informed about your local polictial situation and getting involved in it. Local. Your neighborhood, town, county, and state.
Wow.. P.O.P., I have never witnessed a more pompous or self absorbed and self righteous individual in my life. You know everything and how everyone should live and what they should believe. Right? Why even bother with a blog like this when you have no room in your inflated head for an honest debate?
You, kind sir, may be completely right, in my humble opinion. (Aren’t you always?) I really don’t see how your comment contributes to an honest debate here, but hey, I’ll allow it anyway. Because I’m just that kinda guy.
Prove him wrong
About what? My supposed arrogance and narrow-mindedness? I’ve actually acknowledged he may be right, even though the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. If you peruse the pages of this blog, you’ll see all kinds of open and honest debate on matters that are debatable, and even some on matters that are really not. As for proving him wrong about any of the claims he makes in his own arena — well, maybe I’ll get around to that just as soon as someone proves me wrong for saying that the moon is made of watermelon.
Oh, look! An Alex Jones fanboi!!!
How cute! Do you have posters of The Conspiracy Theorist In Chief above your bed?
Your problem, “Alex”, (besides your man crush on Jones) is that you hate facts. Facts really upset you. That’s a shame.
Patrick! What a great article you’ve written God Bless and keep you until he returns! keep up the good fight!
[…] Wow, someone actually bought Hitler into it….. again. Hitler and his cronies were the ones to use guns to murder. Get it right. What is it called when the other side is losing a debate and they bring up Hitler? The Myth Of Hitler’s Gun Ban […]
The article is debunking an extremely popular myth. It is a RESPONSE, dimwit.
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order.” – Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Translation: Hitler’s Table-Talk at the Fuhrer’s Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)
Interesting quote. It indicates that Hitler considered the real threat of allowing “conquered Eastern peoples to have arms” to come from military and police units, and not just from civilian gun owners.
You’re a moron. Are you trying to argue Hitler defended individuals’ right to bear arms? Read the quotation again, brain-dead liberal.
Thank you for that astute and sophisticated analysis of my competence, character and philosophy. Unfortunately, you totally missed the point of my comment. And you didn’t alter the quote one whit.
To further expose you as a brain-dead, neo-nazi, gun grabbing liberal…
Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons
11 November 1938
With a basis in §31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and §9 of the Führer and Chancellor’s decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:
§1
Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.
§2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.
§3
The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in §1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.
§4
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.
§5
For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.
§6
This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.
Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior
On Nov. 8, the New York Times reported from Berlin, “Berlin Police Head Announces ‘Disarming’ of Jews,” explaining:
The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been “disarmed” with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment.1
On Nov. 9, Adolf Hitler and Nazi officials made the following order: “All Jewish stores are to be destroyed immediately . . . . Jewish synagogues are to be set on fire . . . . The Führer wishes that the police does not intervene. . . . All Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance they are to be shot immediately.”
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html
Unfortunately, this brain-dead, etc. has already beaten you to the punch, pointing out (see above post, which you ostensibly are commenting on) that Hitler put a great many restrictions on Jews, including firearm ownership. But for everyone else, he significantly LOOSENED gun restrictions. So I suppose you can say that he did indeed “defend” an individual’s “right” to own guns — so long as the individual wasn’t Jewish.
“But for everyone else, he significantly LOOSENED gun restrictions.”
*FACEPALM*
Tell that to Hitler-worshiping fascists, liberals and Islamists.
I am telling it to everyone who wants to read it. But I recognize that some people (as you yourself have so ably demonstrated) don’t particularly enjoy hearing the truth.
The question, brain-dead liberals, is who is/are “everyone else”?
Are they his Nazi party-mates?
What about the Jews and the Communists or his political opponents?
Again, are you trying to say Hitler defended “gun rights” or the right to bear arms just like the founding fathers did?
Wow, what an archetype of a “loaded” question. Depends on what you mean by “defend”. And “gun rights”. And “bear arms”. For Hitler AND for the founding fathers.
You can’t answer it, right?
Then is who is/are “everyone else”? Did that include the Jews and Hitler’s political enemies or the communists?
Just answer the question, brain-dead liberal.
Okay kid, it’s abundantly clear that you’re just jerking off and trying to waste my time. So it’s time to invoke my “five or six strikes and you’re out” rule. Out of consideration for my readers, I want comments here to contribute something relevant or interesting. If you can’t do that, you’ll be barred from further posting.
Believe it or not, Nazi’s are considered right wing, not left. Look it up in most any dictionary. It’s were we get our definitions from.
Oxford: “An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.”
“The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach”
This is grossly misleading at best. Hitler DID confiscate weapons from Jews, and he did so with the registrations that were previously forced upon the population. Just because the actions of the government prior to his rise to power had already begun a campaign against the people does not change the facts.
Registration/Confiscation… Genocide. PERIOD.
You can dream whatever little dream you like, but history stands as the monument to truth; from Germany and the Jews, Turkey and the Armenians, USSR/Stalin and the Ukrainians, and in 1994 in Rwanda and the Tutsis.
I have stated that Hitler did not ban guns. He didn’t. I have stated that he actually loosened gun regulations. He did. I have stated that he denied Jews many benefits of citizenship — including but by no means limited to ownership of guns. This also is true. Where exactly is the misleading again?
You may have already answered this somewhere else, P.O.P., but what is your stance on the above mentioned topic? Hitler loosening gun regulations to everyone else, and denying ownership of guns to the Jews, that is. Do you feel what he did, in this case, was positive, negative, or irrelevant to the end result? Can you compare it in any way to America today? Thank you.
Well, I certainly wouldn’t approve of singling out one segment of the population to deny them gun ownership without good cause, especially given that it was within the context of denying the benefits of citizenship on a broader level. As I have indicated, however, I see no reason to believe this materially affected the end result. (More about this in a future post.) No, there is absolutely no comparison to anything in America today. No one here is being singled out as ineligible for gun ownership on the basis of race or creed.
Form over substance, and if singling out a group is going to part of your analysis (something I believe is a red flag but far from the only point of analysis), with the amount of money in politics today, you should be particularly analyzing with respect to any legislation – gun-related or otherwise – whether it is a matter of those in and connected to power (power in a real sense, not just official titles) asserting control over the rest of us. Democide and other government persecutions over time have not been limited to race or creed; as an example, Mao had children turning against their own parents, and the Nazis murdered no shortage of communists irrespective of race or creed.
I am really interested in seeing the intellectual contortions you are going to have to come up with to devise a scenario in which, had Jewish civilians been appropriately armed with assault weapons, fewer would have ended up surviving than would have justified, if you will, the increased level of day-to-day gun violence. Bear in mind the United States had 12,000 gun deaths last year. In the last year that CDC statistics are available, around 250 children were victims of gun homicide nationwide. The Germans killed an average of more than 250 children a day from 1935-1945, and they didn’t really get around to the bulk of the murdering until 1942.
POP wrote: “No one here [in America today] is being singled out as ineligible for gun ownership on the basis of race or creed.”
That’s certainly true, but it’s worth noting that that hasn’t been true in the past, particularly since it has a bearing on the individual ownership vs. militia debate. Some of the arguments I’ve seen here hinge on quotes or writings by Founding Fathers referring in one fashion or another to an armed citizenry. This is in turn interpreted, or merely assumed, to mean any law abiding citizen, thereby allowing the poster to argue, directly or by implication, that “militia” refers to the entire population.
What is clear from the historical record, however, is that this is a modern myth. Gun ownership was restricted to while males over the age of 18; no women or minorities. In fact, if anything, gun ownership was further restricted rather than expanded. For example, during the various Indian wars in the South before the Revolution, blacks were allowed to join the militia, but by the time of the War of Independence, Southern fears of servile insurrection caused them to pass laws banning blacks from militia service so they could not own guns.
Now, here’s the punchline: after the Constitution was ratified, who was allowed to join the militia? White males between the ages of 18 and 45, the same people who were allowed to own guns. Interesting coincidence, no?
Now, this doesn’t answer the question of which came first, armed citizens or militias. Certainly, in the very early years of the colonies, militias were formed from the colonists who owned guns, but based on what we now know, it would seem that gun ownership was not as widespread as modern myth claims, or at least we can say there is no evidence supporting the myth. This is supported in part by the fact that after the Constitution was ratified, some states had laws that required all eligible members of the militia to own guns, while other states issued guns (then took them back when the militiamen were mustered out). If the majority of white males owned guns, or even just a large portion of them, why have a law requiring militiamen to acquire guns for service, or why issue them? It seems rather that this was done because there were too few “armed citizens” to form effective militias. Moreover, there is no evidence these laws were strictly obeyed, or enforced.
As such, history seems to suggest that when the Founding Fathers referred to an armed citizenry, they were actually referring to the state militias in a roundabout fashion. The officially sanctioned and created militias were composed of citizens who were required to be armed, one way or another, but the citizens themselves did not constitute a militia by default. In other words, by the time of the Constitution, it was the militias that were creating an armed citizenry.
It can be confusing when someone like Madison refers to armed citizens and militias virtually in the same breath, but in point of fact he was using two different terms to refer to the same entity.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FinkelmanChicago.htm
Very true. Indeed, a major motive behind inserting the Second Amendment into the Constitution was the protection of slavery — not freedom. “Militia” often was used to designate armed contingents who kept slaves in line, and hunted down runaways. And lest we forget, the “conservatives” who are so vehemently against “gun control” now were very much for it back in that remote era called the Sixties when the Black Panthers liked to stroll around sporting firearms.
Actually Prof I’d argue that point with you. At the time the second amendment was drafted the continental army was downsized to the point of uselessness and there were several revolts against taxation. A suitable militia was thus necessary federally in case of needing to deal with such a scenario again, plus it’s been suggested that the protection of state rights to have a militia (at a time when the states and federals were less trusting than even now) made it easier for the federal government to get permission to have a standing army.
Were militia used to deal with slaves? A very good chance. Was slavery a reason for the second amendment? Nothing I’ve seen suggests that beyond present day hearsay.
As it happens, a concise and insightful analysis of my point was published just recently.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
So, where, would you say, the line is then? At what point is there good cause & to what degree do we allow, as citizens, the government to pick and choose who they feel is allowed weapons? Obviously, there are certain universal understandings of who should and should not be allowed the right to weapons, such as criminals, the mentally ill, possibly a certain age range, etc.. I think there needs to be regulations, don’t get me wrong, but there is a huge difference between regulations & bans. What if they were to put a ban (of any kind) on the internet or cell phones? Both of these are very dangerous tools as well. How do you feel about this? And, at what point do you allow freedoms to be taken? What are freedoms? Maybe we consider things to be freedoms that should not be? Just trying to cultivate some good discussion to see if we could all work together to devise a wise plan of action in the aid of decreased fatalities in the use of these guns. Why not? Why not use this time, not to bicker, but to actually come to some brilliant conclusions that one could even submit to congress?
My own take on this is there is a huge difference between banning assault weapons and banning cell phones. What I find very interesting is that people didn’t make a big deal out of it when Reagan called for such a ban. But when Obama does it, he’s clearly Hitler reborn. In any case, it wouldn’t bother me if all guns were banned, though I know that will never happen, nor do I know of any good reason it should. But I don’t depend on guns for my peace of mind. Note also that there is a big difference in prohibiting gun ownership for, say a person with a history of violence and prohibiting it for Jews, Muslims or atheists.
On the first view yes, it seems that he loosened gun control. On the second view you will see that he loosened only gun control for his organizations. There where no permits neccessary for Hitlerjugend, Lower Member of the NSDAP (called Untergruppenführer), Nationalsozialistische Kraftfahrtkorps… and many other Hitler or Nazi related Organisation. Means they had a right to carry a firearm even without any permit. He also invented (or extended the law originaly made in the Weimar Republik) that permits are neccessary and Weapons can only be held by responsible persons. You can imagine what that means if the whole bureaucracy where already Members of the NSDAP. Just by saying everyone can get a permit doesnt mean everyone gets a permit, expecially if the person who makes the decision is a member of the NSDAP. The weapon law was actually a tool for them to select party members and Nazis from the rest of the people. Giving permits to one group, deny permits to the other group. Thats also the reason why it reads on first hand generous but if you want to outfit “your” people with firearms you cannot deny ownvership in the law itself, you have to establish a tool that puts you in the position to lead weopons where you want them to be.
Generally banned where gypsies, gays or Jews or everyone who was suspicious of being non faithful.
The intention of the weapon law established 1938 is pretty clear. Outfit Nazis with weapons, take away weapons from everyone else.
There’s some truth to this, of course. But the bottom line is, Hitler did not “ban” guns, as often claimed. And while keeping guns out of the hands of the oppressed made it easier to oppress them, it doesn’t follow (as often presumed) that allowing them guns would have enabled them to resist NAZI conquest successfully. It would, however, have made that conquest a little bloodier.
That´s right, we will never figure out what would have happend or what would have not happened. To state that Hitler “banned” guns is as false as to claim that Hitler loosened gun laws. The truth is that he used the weapon law to strenghten his position and the people and organications supporting him. There was actually no need for him to ban guns for NSDAP Members or the Hitlerjugend. Due to theyr indoctrination they would have died for him anyways, weapons in theyr hands was actually a advantage.
From a personal viewpoint: Armed Jews and the armed majority of Germans wouldn´t had stopped him starting a Genozide but maybe it would had ended earlier. It wouldn´t also had stopped him attacking France or Russia as the Propaganda Machine worked very well and the majority of Germans didnt either know about the Conzentration Camps as well as the lies about Poland attacking Germany. For the whole majority of Germans the beginning of the war was a mix of self-defence and fighting for rights that they lost in the Versaier Contracts. Hitler wasnt evil, he was the good guy for the most. That he would act dishonest was unthinkable.
Anyways, Jews fighting for their life inside Germany, not in a conzentration camp, would have opened the eyes of much Germans (and the rest of the world) way earlier. Splinter Groups (like the Rote Kapelle or die Weiße Rose) could have started being more effective, not in Killing Nazis, but in getting peoples attention. As i said, its a personal viewpoint but in my eyes Hitlers weapon control of course let him do what he did, at least it made things easier for him.
It’s important to note that the 1938 gun measure did not introduce any new restrictions — and it relaxed some that already existed. It was designed to make access to guns easier for those considered German citizens — which excluded Jews and gypsies or other “vagabonds”. It was actually Hitler’s enemies, and not Hitler himself, who were proponents of “gun control”.
I doubt that the designers of the 1928 weapon law where Hitlers enemys but they made things easier for him as the law invented something called “Bedürfnis”, maybe the best word for this would be “Justification” to own a weapon. The law of 1938 also didnt disarm the Jews, that happend way before by the Gestapo and the Police staitions as they got a directive from the NSDAP not to permit a “Justification” to Jews. The law of 1938 just wrote down what already happend. There was no need for him to “ban” weapons (see the explanations in my last post). If you have a tool that allows you to lead weapons where you want them why should you ban them? In fact, the law gives him the control of all weapon ownership as just the party decides who has a Bedürfnis and who not. You dont really believe that a member of “The Weiße Rose” would have gotten a weapon license just because they would have been a German Citizen.
If you read the law word by word and state that, due to that law, all german citizens had easier access to weapons you are wrong, only NSDAP Members (and the others i listed) had easier access to weapons while the Nazis used the Tool “Justification” to get it out of the hand of everyone else.
That the weapon law stated “German Citizens” is just common sense. What else should they have written in there?
I am a Pinko Left Wing Liberal Sterotype who currently has a 45 Ruger precisely BECAUSE of nutters like Patrick. I do not think I can protect myself from government with anything but sound reasoning and an ability to communicate. Individual nutters though can be kept off my front porch with the Ruger. Thanks for the balanced responses P.O.P. but I think Patrick closed his mind quite some time ago, 60+ years would be my guess. Mine was opened 60+ years ago and since that time I have learned lots of information that was simply unknown in the 1950’s. Science marches on, some people do not.
read the Treaty of Versaillies if you want to know who banned guns in Germany.
I would like to add some things about gun ownership in our present days, and in particular concealed weapon permits. In light of the CT shootings, the laws that were set in to place worked. The crazy killer was not able to buy the guns quick enough to kill so the CT killer had to steal his parents guns. With that said if there had been one or even two people there with a concealed weapon there might have been a far different circumstance. And here is proof, this is a story that includes a county sheriff officer that happened to be at the scene of the shooting when one of these crazy’s showed up. Just proof gun ownership works. But I ask why is this shooting not all over the internet? I wonder? maybe because it shows that armed citizens will fight back? Guns will always be there in the black market it is just a matter of are you going to give the citizen’s like weapons to fight back with. Second thought why destroy guns when you have people like the man in Korea in August that stabbed 8 people in a subway. Does that not prove it is the person not the guns? San Quenton had three violent felonies a day in 1997. How many of those do you think were done by guns? Let us use our brains here and blame the people and not the tools.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php
By all means, blame the individuals. But the thing is, guns make it much easier to kill than knives do. Guns, after all, were invented specifically to kill with.
Yea, swords were made for killing. But I am sure it was a good thing they were kept around for many nations when their lands were being invaded. and the problem with us good guys getting rid of the guns is that the bad guys will still have them or get access to them. Here is a good video that I found and it will clear up all these problems.
http://www.flixxy.com/political-systems.htm
Having lived and worked in some rough areas of the US and the world, I feel as though I ought to chime in somewhere with my own experience. This post tripped my wire. First, I would like to posit that “proof” of any opinion is not going to be found in anecdotal evidence supporting one position or another. Yes, perhaps once an officer of the law was present when someone was about to shoot up the place and he intervened successfully by virtue of his owning a gun. If that’s “proof” then does my forthcoming counterexample refute that one instance and thus whatever argument that you are trying to make, right is right?
In my case, someone walked into our street level room in a garage of an industrial zone via an unlocked door with a .45 semi-automatic pistol leveled at my face, as I was closest to him. He said, “Don’t look at me, or I’ll shoot you!” I raised my hands and dropped my gaze to the floor. My girlfriend, who was standing next to me thought it was a joke and laughed for a moment until she realized what was going on. There were 2 others in the room. If any of us then had a pistol in hand, do you think that he would not have shot all of us straight off? Anyway, we were calmly terrorized by this man for more than an hour. At one point, he tried to drag my girlfriend off from the floor where we were lying to presumably rape her in the next room. When she made a loud, crazy fuss, he dragged her back, put a jacket over my head and counted down from 10 to zero, to force her to comply. I remember a lot of shouting and crying in the room and considered that I was living my last moments then. This went on for a while, with a couple more countdowns, him walking around the room. pointing the guns (he said that he two) at the backs of our heads. He emptied our pockets, drank a half-bottle of wine (OK, this was a recording studio) and pocketed another, telling us a couple of stories. As her prepared to leave, he ordered one of us to go out and start his car. He then walked around the room and warned us that he would kill our friend if we were not on the floor, as he left us, when he returned in 20 minutes.
He left, taking the friend with a pistol pressed against the back of his head to the next town where he was released. Ultimately, we were physically unharmed. My girlfriend sought counseling because she felt responsible for leaving the door ajar and for thus precipitating the PTSD symptoms that I developed a couple of months later. In that time, a housemate, sleeping in the next room from me awoke with a pistol pressed to his forehead and had his room robbed. I am pretty sure that he would have died had he a gun in hand or if he tried to access one that he might have hidden under his mattress, if he indeed had one. He was later mugged, smashed with an empty quart beer bottle square in the face– his jaw broken and his lower bridge of teeth cracked and cut through his chin. I am pretty certain that in this case, even a gun in hand or one in a quick-draw holster would not have helped him beside jeopardizing his life should he have attempted to use one.
I could go on. My point is that from my own, personal experience, the dynamics of a violent confrontation are a lot more eccentric than what handgun proponents might suppose. Truly, I think that you guys lack a lot of imagination in the configuration of your scenarios. You also tend to have a blind spot to the instances when having a handgun (or an assault rifle) present would have intensified a toxic situation. I think it’s a form of aggressive or self-interested, willful naivete on your part.
When I once turned the last corner toward home and saw some kids playing in the street then run into the (never) open front door of our place, would it have helped me/them/us if I had a pistol then, when I went room to room looking for them? They stole our rent money that day. Would having a pistol have helped anyone when I learned later that one of them had tortured and killed our beloved cat? I was enraged and shook my first in his face as a security guard held him for the police. How about the one time that a chain-swinging vagrant blocked a 4-lane road as I rode my bike in to work at 5AM? Would having gun in hand have helped me or him when he spit on me? I could have pulled mine out and shot him without anyone ever knowing about it. Then again, if he had a pistol then, I might lived through that otherwise mundane urban confrontation.
Move to Maine! T.
It was a trained LEO in the San Antonio theater shooting! Not some minimally trained “Dirty Harry” wannabe with a CCW permit and a military fetish. What about the guy in Georgia that was found with a bullet in his head, surrounded by several of his weapons. Not a single one of the high powered weapons that he had on his person at the time of his death saved his life. And what about the woman in Pennsylvania who gained some notoriety for openly carrying a 9mm to a 5 year old, kids soccer game? Her guns did not protect her from being shot to death by her husband. it goes both ways. But I do enjoy your ability to spew poser patriot talking points with aplomb.
[…] […]
Like any post here, PP doesn’t source his claims and they’re very biased and one-sided. You are the one dispencing propaganda not busting it.
Jesus, can’t someone please come up with a less original juvenile insult? That one is boring me to tears.
So I’m sincerely a little confused, are you trying to debunk the fact that Hitler enacted a total gun ban, or trying to point out that Hitlers gun control measures were an effective means to arm his allied populace while at the same time disarming his targeted Jewish populace?
The first point is the real focus of this post. The second is a matter of interpretation rather than demonstrable fact. I’ll have more on this topic in the near future.
I have to admit, that is a very valid question. It would also be an interesting thesis for investigation.
After reading all of these responses, I just want to advocate having symbolic reasoning and logic along with formalized debate as part of the core curriculum in public schools. I am amazed at how many groupings of hybrid illogical fallacies and invalid reasoning are being flung around all willy-nilly. It seems to be disproportionally originating from the same posters who insist you educate yourself or insist you are somehow both brain dead and liberal. You’ve managed to construct quite a haven for paradox here. Which is unfortunate, because if both sides of the debate are unable to sit down and find at least SOME common ground, however will we move forward together, which we must do in order to survive intact. I know others here are accusing you of being arrogant, I think the best way to describe you is having the patience of a saint. I read some (well most) of these comments and look at it like a baking experiment gone horribly wrong. It’s like arguing with paint. Really, stupid paint. Bless you and your attempts.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I do my best. But some of these people really do try your patience.
I agree with Christin completely. Patience of a Saint PP. I just watched the Piers Morgan/Alex Jones interview on CNN and although I’ve had time for the real AJ in years gone by – felt that he had done some valuable work waking the US people up to some relevant issues – he really has lost his way now (if not his sanity) and represented the pro-gun crowd perfectly, rabid, irrational, illogical, chaotic reasoning, like a three year old about to be dispossessed of a hammer. If Alex Jones is representative of the right wing gun lobby then, America, you have a problem.
The comments and quotes here illustrate the depth of the division between the pro-gun and anti-gun protagonists. Pro-gunners come across as illogical, irrational, using any random fact, argument or insult they can draw on, preferably at full volume, to shout down reasonable debate. No amount of reasoned argument can convince the toddler mentality that being without the hammer is better for everyone but PP you’re doing a sterling job trying.
I agree with Christin, about this debate looking like a baking experiment gone horribly wrong! Your saintly patience is a given. I also think you’ve absolutely argued your case. Shame the same couldn’t be said for the pro-gun side but then, they really don’t have an argument, however many times they bring up Hitler, or Mao or any other historically inaccurate data to back up their side. Guns are not cars or knives. Guns were designed specifically to kill people, not to transport people around or cut things up. They have no other purpose. As soon as you convince yourself that you need one to survive, you sign your own potential death warrant along with one for every individual you meet who makes you feel threatened or afraid. Without a gun, different levels of social reasoning have to be attained. Possibly why the least eloquent are always the ones who want to hold onto their guns. It’s their only way out of any reasonable argument. In the end, if it doesn’t agree with you, you can always shoot it.
As an illustration of how hard a struggle it is to find any pro-gun advocates able to debate the issue in a reasonable way, Alex Jones recent interview with Piers Morgan on CNN really has to be seen
http://www.upworthy.com/angry-gun-advocate-loses-it-live-on-cnn-in-the-most-bizarre-interview-ever
Whatever you want to say about Alex Jones, in this interview, he is clearly several chips short of a jackpot.
. Pro-gunners, whether they mean to or not, nearly always come across as rabid, illogical and irrational, given to resorting to insults and threats when their inability to present accurate facts, figures or reasoning is exposed. Think of a 3yr old with a claw hammer, having a tantrum about giving it up and you’ve about reached the level of pro-gun debate in the US. Nothing anyone can say will convince that 3yr old that removing his hammer will be safer for everyone as well as himself but any adult who lets him keep it, knows the risks, don’t they? It’s both amusing and sad to observe this debacle, but I’ll take my gun free country over yours any day of the week. Whatever statistics you want to pull up about Europe, in most parts of it, one can live peacefully without any real fear that someone random will whip out a gun and blow you away. Sure, mass shootings do happen, infrequently, and sure, there is violent crime here (gun related crime tends to be gang-related only) although much less than Americans like to believe, but I’m happy to know that 99% of the people around me are unlikely to be able to shoot me dead if I break down in my car outside their house at night.
I am absolutely not an advocate of the status quo. I think the State machinery of modern government is crippling all our lives, our societies and our children’s future, and that our current poor values will contribute to the corruption of society to the point of collapse. I don’t think that will be solved or prevented by people toting guns but it might well be hastened.
‘Withheld’ above is right, if the US government really wants to take away your freedoms, all it needs is to take away your food, water and health care for a few weeks, give you time to shoot each other over the last can of beans, and then come swooping in with the biggest war machine on the planet (or a lot of unmanned drones) and clean up the mess. 50 guns in your house isn’t going to change that, it’ll only lead to the death of you.
Really interesting discussion and I agree with Christin 100%. We need history taught in the schools. We need logic and debate taught in our schools, and NOT from the Texas curriculum either!!
I will ask you to bare with me because I am not the best of spellers and I will have a few grammatical errors in this post of this I am sure. I personally believe that people should be allowed to carry and maintain their weapon systems be it a hunting rifle or something with which to defend their homes. I also believe that not everyone has the capacity to use those weapons in the proper manner because on the whole people are stupid scared animals. Before you jump on my case and say that not all people are stupid think about this a “person” is an intelligent and rational creature capable of great compassion and thought while “people” are terrified of anything that does not fit into their neat little box of what they believe to be correct and true. So yes the second amendment does give all american people the right to bare arms with which to defend themselves. Everyone is so up in arms about assault weapons but what is the purpose of weapons if not to assault another living creature be it for food or be it for any other reason. All weapons are made to assault that is their very nature and why they were created be it a humble rock or a tricked out AR 15 with laser sights and a pistol grip. I am myself a military veteran and before joining the military had never fired nor owned any kind of rifle and had no desire to own any kind of rifle. Once I joined the military I was taught everything I would need to know about the weapon systems I was firing from the basic name of said rifle, to how to break it down and care for it, all the way up to how far and fast the round would travel for every second after it left the muzzle. As I said I believe that every one should be allowed to own a weapon but they should first learn to use the weapon properly and prove that they are of sound mind before being allowed to purchase one. Because as someone much smarter than me said guns don’t kill people, people kill people. A gun is nothing more or less than a tool it has no goals no ulterior motives in and of itself. If a gun is wielded by a bad person then that gun will be used to do evil things. If that same gun is wielded by a righteous person then that gun will be used to do righteous things. Is a gun any more dangerous in the hands of a well trained man than a sword is when it is in the hands of a master? No it is not the only difference between the two is the distance at which you will be killed. Both of those weapons can be taken up and used by the untrained to kill a person and yet it is not the sword that people seem to fear it is the gun. What makes the gun so much more dangerous in people’s minds is not the fact that it kills it is the fact that it kills at a distance.
Well, you’re certainly free to believe people have a right to own a gun. And you’re right — but they have that right largely because of the Supreme Court and/or other rulings and laws. It’s not spelled out clearly in the Constitution, as I’ve already discussed (and will discuss further soon). You make a very good point about people (at least some of them) being “stupid scared animals”. But here’s the thing: will giving them guns make them any smarter? Or will it just allow them to do stupid things a lot easier? Not all gun owners have your kind of training. And by no means do all of them have the kind of presence of mind that a person needs to have when armed.
My point is train the people who want to own guns that way they are not a danger to themselves or to others. I do apologize if I did not make that clear. I have read the posts on here as a buddy of mine posted this on his face book page which brought it to my attention. I believe you to be a well educated and patient person. And you are right giving a person a gun will not make them any smarter but I have also said a person has the capacity to be intelligent and compassionate it is only when we gather in large groups that capacity is diminished. Many people do not wish to think for themselves and will go with the crowd so as not to stand out.
As per the Hitler, gun restriction, and the Holocaust argument I fear you have fallen for the great fallacy that empowering an individual with a greater chance to defend themselves is somehow useless because they wouldn’t be able to stop a genocide. This isn’t your fault of course. Many people see 6 million and believe that it is an all or nothing sort of affair instead of millions of acts of individual theft, molestation, and murder, each with their own circumstances. I would just say that as you were not one of the tens of thousands of German Jews, or millions of Jews in occupied countries denied their right to self defense by previous governments and occupiers alike, you cannot ever state that said individuals would not have benefited from the possession of a rifle, grenade, mortar, explosive, or hang gun.
Well, I don’t believe I said it would have been “useless” for the Jews to have been armed, but I did say I haven’t seen any reason to believe they would have stopped the Holocaust. And nobody has yet shown me any. It’s interesting that you start listing military-style weapons, which the Jews would have been unlikely to possess even if they’d been allowed to own guns. The NAZI troops, however, did have them in great supply. Not to mention tanks and other armaments that could have handily overpowered even a Jewish citizenry armed to the teeth.
I think they did make an attempt in Poland, it didn’t bode well for them.
Errrrr what’s a hang gun? T.
Thanks, POP, for this article. The reason your conservative detractors are so upset is because they live in a fantasy world where bumper sticker knowledge and forwarded internet memes replace facts. You know that when they first encountered that alleged quote from Hitler’s speech, they never once bothered to actually seek out an objective historical source regarding gun laws in Germany to see if it was true. This is why, for example, they can get outraged at Obama for doing something that many other presidents, including Republicans have done in the past. When the Fox anchor says “Obama didn’t do X,” they’re not going to check and see if say, George W. Bush, also didn’t do whatever “patriotic” ritual is in question.
The reason why these morons believe that Jews could have prevented the Holocaust with guns is twofold:
1. They don’t know anything about the Holocaust or how it began. It was something so gradual, and unexpected, that organized resistance was not possible until it was too late. The roots of the Holocaust began on the Eastern Front, where there was armed resistance. That resistance didn’t stop millions from being killed.
2. They live in a fantasy world where they believe that “good guys with guns” can stop bad guys with guns, wherever. Despite over 50 mass shootings in the last few years, not one has been stopped by a “good guy with a gun.” Yet still these morons insist that if THEY had been in that theatre in Aurora, or at Sydney Hook Elementary, they would have whipped out their Glock and saved the day, just like in a movie. They often believe this because NRA and other gun publications print stories of people who used guns in self-defense(curiously, none of them stopped a mass shooting). What they don’t publish are stories of failed self-defense, accidents, and people having their guns used against themselves.
In the real world, even if you have a gun you are at an extreme disadvantage vs. a person who is more prepared, and planning to commit a crime or massacre. This goes double if they are armed with a semi-automatic rifle. Good luck taking them out with your .38 revolver, John McClane.
In the same vein, the Jews of Germany or Poland could not have just immediately resisted the Nazis on the fly. You have to remember that their population included plenty of elderly and children- many had no military training, there were no logistics, and often nowhere to hide. Also at the time, they had no reason to believe they would be exterminated. They believed that even though they were mistreated, Germany needed them to produce for their war machine.
It’s also good to keep in mind that resistance movements were very active in occupied Soviet territory and other occupied countries such as Yugoslavia. Even with heavy weapons and massive amounts of aid from Allied powers, the Axis forces were still able to hold onto these regions, often with 2nd rate formations(sometimes made up of foreign collaborators) without too much trouble. Outside of Albania and Greece, it was outside conventional military power which drove the occupiers out.
Lastly there’s one more important point. Gun nuts(and yes, they are gun nuts, and this is coming from a person who owned multiple guns including semi-auto Romanian AKs) constantly tell us that gun control doesn’t work, that it only stops “good people” from getting guns. So if that is true, then Hitler’s alleged gun ban, or the real ban on Jews owning guns, shouldn’t have worked. How can one claim that gun control doesn’t keep people from illegally obtaining guns and then in the same breath say that gun control was responsible for the Holocaust?
Either gun control keeps guns out of the hands of certain people or it does not- period.
Lastly I want to address what Alan said about Hitler’s Table Talk. While there are some disputed quotes in Table Talk, much of it is in line with what Hitler had said in other speeches and in his works. It is indeed believable that he would be talking about textiles because Hitler had a reputation for focusing on all kind of tiny details(particularly in military matters), often at the expense of the big picture.
Some astute observations here. It’s important to remember that there’s no magical dividing line between armed good guys and armed bad guys; and the “good guys” are in fact responsible for a great many gun crimes. As for Alan.. well, he’s a Holocaust denier, and he submitted even more crap than I allowed to be posted here. It would be wise to take anything he says with a bucket of salt. There is absolutely nothing unrealistic about Hitler discussing textiles.
Come on, everyone knows Hitler was totally one-dimensional and incapable of discussing anything other than Blitzkriegs and gas chambers.
Patrick will never be reasoned with. Feel free to ignore him, you have my permission and it will drive him nuts(er).
You have to admit Patrick is quite the propagandist. Is he employed by the AFA, the NRA, or Chik-Fil-A?
Very reasonable comments from (of course) anonymous. And you wonder why we cannot have intelligent discourse designed to save kids’ lives. It’s not all the politicians fault…
Ah, so its only about “kids’ lives”? Alrighty then. First thing, we need to ban private vehicles. More children are killed by irresponsible drunk drivers than guns, let alone by all cars on the road (even when considering the fact that over half of all gun deaths are suicides). If we required everyone to take mass transit and removed all other vehicles, we would save more lives than any two safety measures of *any* type, combined. And you have a right to a gun, you don’t have a right to a car. Oh wait, that’s a ludicrous solution to saving lives!! Why? Because *you* like your car.
Daniel Mey, is some responsible person suggesting that *all* firearms should be confiscated? Your comment reads as a response to such an argument. Car and drivers are currently regulated with licensing and and enforcement. Doesn’t the second amendment, the part before the comma, mention a “well-regulated” militia?
Daniel,
Is one of the definitive purposes of a car to kill human beings, and not just by random accidents? Guns are a little different because a major part of their use involves self-defense of assault.and they were largely invented for that purpose–not just to knock a beer can off of a fence post!
Come up with a better analogy!
How do you figure good guys are responsible for a great many gun crimes? Can you provide sources, facts and evidence on that load of garbage???
Note that he says there’s no magical dividing line. The point is that there are lots of people who think of themselves as good guys who end up becoming bad guys with their guns, or whose guns end up in the hands of bad guys. George Zimmerman almost certainly thought of himself as the good guy; in his mind he was packing heat to protect the community, not to rob liquor stores. Nancy Lanza was probably what most of us would think of as more a good guy than a bad guy, but arming her ended up arming her son. In both instances, a “good guy” was responsible for a tragic gun crime, in the first by actually shooting an unarmed boy, and in the second by arming a boy who should have remained unarmed.
You can exclude them from your list of “good guys” if you want by saying that good guys by definition aren’t responsible for crimes. But then “good guys” become impossible to identify until after they have lived out their exemplary crime-free lives. Which is kind of the point.
Okay, well I guess in that respect I would agree with that. Maybe i wasn’t thinking clearly. Thank you.
Mr. Vazquez,
I do not doubt that most of many gun crimes are committed by those who are already on the outs with the law. However, I do find it difficult to believe that little or no gun crimes have happened as a result of crimes of passion committed by otherwise stalwart citizens.
In many press reports involving a neighbor, that is suddenly implicated in a violent crime (some no doubt involving the use of firearms) it is not uncommon for people in the neighborhood to describe the perpetrator as a nice guy who was always considerate to others etc.etc. So, apparently the label of (nice guy, or good guy) is often dependent on the moment someone may lose control and do something violent and uncharacteristic of his normal behavior, with a weapon.
Please don’t require me to search the archives of the NYT in order to find such reports. We have all seen or heard about them in the local and national news, and I am sure you know the kind of incidents I am referring to.
“I do find it difficult to believe that little or no gun crimes have happened as a result of crimes of passion committed by otherwise stalwart citizens. ”
As anyone who has spent any time in the law enforcement will tell you, people do all kinds of unusual things. One “see it all”. In other words, any type of crime you could possibly imagine, no matter how heinous, has probably been committed in the United States, by any kind of person you could imagine– from the hardened career criminal to the innocent housewife who has never received a speeding summons before in her life… prior to murdering all her children.
The point isn’t that such things NEVER happen. Of course they do. The point is that they are HIGHLY UNUSUAL, to the point of being statistically insignificant.
A word I could use is “outlier”, in statistics… I remember a college Biological Statistics class I had to take, in which I had to construct a graph of the weights of a randomly selected group of animals, where the average weight was, say, 100lbs. Out of 100 animals I had data on, the vast majority fit neatly on the curve. But, inevitably, I’d have data that included one or two animals that weighed, say, 200lbs, or 20lbs. They were highly unusual, to the point of being aberrations. And thus, I was taught to disregard them when constructing a “best-fit” graph curve. That is an analogy I can think of that would be appropriate here.
Regarding using newspaper reports as evidence… there are reasons why they’re not admissible in court, or even as scientific evidence in academia. For one thing, they are often wrong factually, especially at the onset of the investigation. One can hardly blame them for being wrong– they aren’t privy to the facts of the investigation, unlike the actual investigators. This is why actual police reports and court transcripts are always preferable to newspaper articles.
Another reason is much more insidious– and it is evident that it has had its effects on you. The problem with using newspaper reports as evidence, in any discussion, is that newspapers are published in order to make money. And how do they make money? By being as sensational as possible. In the years that I was a police officer, several of my fellow police officers were shot and killed, not by erstwhile law abiding citizens, but by hardened convicted felons who should not have had guns to begin with. Did these shootings receive national, or even a great deal of local, media attention? No. Hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent men, women and children were shot, many killed, many maimed, by convicted felons, who should not have been wielding guns to begin with in my city. Were ANY of these childrens’ deaths reported on the national, or even regional, media? No, because so many of them were poor, the children of people who had social/societal/economic/criminal difficulties as well, and their shooters were criminals to begin with, gang members, or members of a demographic that is not popular to write about in the media, if you take my meaning.
On the other hand, as soon as an otherwise law-abiding, “sweet”, otherwise respected caucasian (I’m just being realistic here… I’m not caucasian myself, lest you get the wrong idea) housewife shoots her husband and kids, she makes not just the regional, but the national and international news.
And, in that manner, you have the psychological phenomenon of generalization…. suddenly, in the minds of many, who have no experience with what is actually going on in the criminal world, the ONLY people committing gun crimes are otherwise law abiding husbands and housewives who one day snap and “go postal”.
But in reality, this either has NEVER happened, or RARELY happens, in any given jurisdiction.
The scene from Miracle on 34th Street comes to mind, where letters to Santa Clause were dumped on the judge’s desk. If letters represented deaths by firearms, you would receive a handful of letters, from people who had committed murder by firearm with absolutely no criminal record or involvement with law enforcement prior. But then you would be deluged and covered by sacks and sacks full of letters representing people who were killed by firearms wielded by known criminals, if not convicted felons– the sacks and sacks would keep on coming and dumped on your desk, for days on end.
I think any other former or current police officers reading this will agree with me. I was a patrol officer as well as a detective for years (recently), in a large, well-known, busy city on the East Coast, and I can’t think of a single incident in which someone with NO CRIMINAL RECORD WHATSOEVER suddenly, at age 35 or 40 or 50 or what have you, decided to shoot someone else. Yes, there are plenty of domestic shootings (more commonly stabbings), for example– usually by jealous boyfriends or husbands. But I can’t think of a single instance that the police were NEVER called to their residence prior to the incident, the boyfriend/husband had NEVER had a protective order issued to him (otherwise known as restraining order), or was never arrested for prior abuse or any kind of prior crime, or was never mentioned in a police report prior. It just doesn’t happen with any kind of regularity.
And the terrible mistake is to base legislation on if not a unicorn, an okapi.
Mr. Vazquez, Thanks for the response,
For sure it makes sense that most assaults with guns are perpetrated by people who have previously been in conflicts with law enforcement officials or involved with guns in some criminal manner. But I don’t know if the number of “good guy” assaults is actually as tiny as you say. For one thing, your experience as a police officer has to do, presumably, with a certain area of one ‘American city–not the entire United States. But suppose that the relative number of crimes of passion really are miniscule compared to the number of shootings regarding known criminals or ex-cons. Would these have added up to ten people nation wide? 50, 200, 1000? How small does the number have to be in order to be considered worth preventing?
It also seems apparent to me, that the large number of attacks, including those aimed at law enforcement by criminals, are just other reasons to focus on the need to make the acquisition of weapons as difficult as possible. The 1994 “assault” weapons ban certainly did not do that because background checks were not done nearly as thoroughly as they should have.But calling for universal background checks would not prevent the acquisition of firearms by responsible citizens. It would only call attention to purchasers who had prior criminal records or types of mental illnesses! sadly even though the number of gun crimes has come down in many areas, the frequent purchase of semi-automatic assault weapons, along with bullets, large capacity magazines, and even body armor remain amazingly simple for most of us to order online. That raises a big Why?!
Of course criminals frequently don’t obey the law, and mentally ill people are often involved in mass shootings, there is no doubt that if the acquisition of deadly firepower were made much more difficult, we could not help but see a decrease in Mass shootings. And, sure, people will continue to assault others with any weapons they can, but a rock is no match for 60 rounds fired in one minute, and if your child throws rocks at other kids in the playground, the solution is NOT to give all the other kids rocks.
If restrictions on the availability of guns are made, criminals (or potential criminals) would also not be able to acquire them so easily. We need to prohibit straw purchases, and even the sale of weapons to relatives, unless some sort of effective background checks preceded those purchases. It is also true that even our automobiles (large mobile objects capable of hurling down roads at 100+ mph.) are licensed, registered , re-registered have their license plates renewed annually, and cannot be driven by someone without an appropriate license of adequate insurance (in many states). Yet the government has never tried to take away anyone’s vehicle without good reasons i.e a number of drunk driving convictions. Like wise regulating our firearms will not result in confiscation of all of our weapons.
Where gun regulations are involved, it is obvious that police prefer gun battles with criminals who do not possess rapid firing semi-automatics, high speed bullets, drum magazines and even an assailant wearing body armor. Even if the Newtown shooter’s mother had properly stored her weapons under lock and key, or was not able to purchase an AR-15 because it was really and genuinely removed from the market which has been selling them to the public, the Newtown tragedy would probably not happened or become much less likely to happen.
Unfortunately the news outlets do sometimes ignore stories about gun violence because they are committed frequently by minority groups who might be living in bad neighborhoods. They may happen so often, that a newspaper (for example) might be labeled as redundant or single minded when running stories that are sort of generically similar to ones it has already run over and over. I am sure that sometimes they don’t get their facts right but usually someone can lodge a complaint with a new outlet,that, might spark a correction of information, or a complete retraction from the newspaper’s editors. After all, their accuracy and ethical treatment regarding controversial subjects are big parts of their very reputation as reliable outlets. This criteria is also lived up to by law enforcement officials. But I cannot believe that, in the heat of battle–sometimes involving multiple shooter as well as more than one police officer, an officer always accurately remembers and interprets his experience with virtually no mistakes at all! Subjecting accounts to an extensive system of law enforcement officials, unfortunately can also include greater opportunity for mistakes and lies at each level. We are all fallible just like the police also are!
In any case, I think that actually restricting the physical presence of guns and our physically ability to acquire them, will also provide benefits that keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals. If WE cannot buy them, criminals will find it more difficult to acquire them. And before we talk about black market availability, consider that such a network has probably provided almost anything illegal to anyone who wants it. Does that mean that we should completely ignore the problem and merely hope that it goes away? Of course not! Every potential, or current criminal will probably still acquire weapons one way or another, but simple logic dictates that not as many of them wil be able to complete the transactions required, prior to purchasing them!
If anything the fact that many more criminals, as compared with “good guy” gun owners, are involved in illegal uses of firearms is all the more reason to regulate them. Most members of the NRA and other gun enthusiasts undoubtedly do use weapons properly, but no one needs huge ammo magazines or rapidly firing weapons, just for being a responsible owner! Perhaps the government can make specific exception to those who truly prove their knowledge and respect for firearms in an effective—after they meet certain requirements! For Christs’s we do the same with truck drivers because to drive an 18 wheeler well, and with a healthy regard for safety, is not something everyone can do.
Once again, this entire gun debate revolves around providing adequate protection from violence to the public—not slapping the wrists of gun owners out of disrespect or arrogance. It really has to do with saving lives—something we all are interested in!
“But I don’t know if the number of “good guy” assaults is actually as tiny as you say.”
I have no idea what a “good guy assault” is. An assault is a crime committed by the person committing the crime. As far as the law, and the police are concerned, neither the suspect nor the victim is the “good” or “bad” guy. They are simply the suspect and the victim.
“Would these have added up to ten people nation wide? 50, 200, 1000? How small does the number have to be in order to be considered worth preventing?”
A)Clearly, every crime is worth preventing. Even crimes that only take place once a year, or once a century. But some crimes are impossible to prevent. Or at the very least, impossible to prevent without violating the Constitution. We have to remember that the purpose of our Constitution is not to prevent crime. It is to protect our individual rights. For example, clearly, every drug dealer becomes a drug dealer for a first time. Every prostitute becomes a prostitute for a first time. Every drunk driver becomes a drunk driver for the first time. In other words, all of the above criminals committed their crimes without a previous involvement with police. But, clearly, this continues to happen. These crimes continue to happen, in society. No matter what we do, these crimes continue to be committed. I am certain that even in the most repressive societies, such as Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany, there continued to be drunk drivers, murderers, child killers, prostitutes. Even when some of these crimes resulted in the most terrible of executions or imprisonments. If your goal is to eliminate crimes that are already miniscule in their occurrence, such as mass shootings by, let’s be honest about it, white males with no previous criminal record, you will fail, even if you had all of the resources of the KGB and Gestapo at your beck and call. Which makes it even more meaningless to attempt it in our free society.
B)The fact that you are attempting to “prevent” a crime that hardly ever happens, but are choosing to NOT attempt to prevent terrible crimes that take place on a daily basis — such as stabbings, shootings, rapes, child molestations, etc, by known criminals, tells me that you are less interested in preventing crime and helping the majority of victims of crime, and more interested in pushing a personal agenda.
C)The very fact that a crime is committed by someone who is completely unknown to police makes that crime very unlikely to be prevented. Without there being a police state. And that is not something I am interested in defending.
“It also seems apparent to me, that the large number of attacks, including those aimed at law enforcement by criminals, are just other reasons to focus on the need to make the acquisition of weapons as difficult as possible. The 1994 “assault” weapons ban certainly did not do that because background checks were not done nearly as thoroughly as they should have.”
I am really getting tired of explaining this, and I will not explain it again. You are apparently under the impression that criminals, who commit the vast majority of shootings (and incidentally, you must realize that the vast majority of shootings do NOT result in death) waltz down to their local gun store, purchase an AR-15 (or attempt to purchase it by lying their way through the purchase), and then use that gun in crimes. THAT’S NOT HOW IT HAPPENS, in the vast majority of cases. In the vast majority of cases–
A)The shootings are committed with PISTOLS, often revolvers, with small magazines (not 30 round magazines, not AR-15s). In fact in the years I was a patrol officer and detective, I did not know of a single shooting committed with an AR-15. And I worked in a large, crime-ridden, busy city on the east coast.
B)Often, the shootings are committed with CHEAP, badly-constructed pistols (I lost count of the number of HiPoint pistols used in shootings– they are very inaccurate, very slow to fire, made of very inferior metal so they tend to rust quickly). NOT EXPENSIVE AR-15s. In fact, ALL of my fellow police officers killed by firearms during my tenure WERE KILLED BY SMALL, CHEAP, low-capacity pistols. Not AR-15s.
C)The firearms used in these crimes ARE ALMOST ALWAYS STOLEN. Not purchased by “straw buyers”. Not bought legitimately and kept lovingly in a safe. But STOLEN, often many, many years earlier. For example, one of the times that I was faced by a suspect wielding a semi-automatic rifle, it was a very cheap ($100), poorly constructed Chinese-made SKS rifle which only has a permanent 10-round magazine, which turned out to have been STOLEN back in 1994. Another example was a rash of gun store burglaries in the mid-2000s on the East Coast by a professional burglary gang that resulted in thousands of STOLEN firearms ending up on the street being used in crimes, including in my city. I lost track of those guns turning up on the persons of convicted felons who I arrested. Of course, purchases by “straw buyers” take place regularly. But obviously, background checks have no effect, because the person buying the firearms would have no record. This is one of those crimes I mentioned above which is impossible to prevent, unless and until that person continues to do so and becomes known to the police, and is caught.
I would recommend that you contact your local law enforcement and request to participate in a “ride along”, in the worst of the worst projects of your city, if there is one. You will quickly realize that the only firearms these people can get a hold of are firearms acquired in illegal ways. For that matter, even possessing a firearm in a project is illegal, because they have strict housing rules… but that’s another subject. The point is, THEY ARE COMMITTING THE MAJORITY OF GUN CRIMES. If you care about gun crimes, confront them, confront the conditions that create them. That involves things like welfare, having numerous children out of wedlock, while on welfare, these children attending one of the worst school systems in the world, racial issues, etc etc etc.
“the frequent purchase of semi-automatic assault weapons, along with bullets, large capacity magazines, and even body armor remain amazingly simple for most of us to order online. That raises a big Why?!”
A better question would be why not? I own many semi-automatic rifles (there is no such thing as an “assault rifle”), many large capacity magazines, and body armor. Why shouldn’t I own them? I even have a concealed carry permit. I’m not a convicted felon, I have not been found incompetent by any court.
However, it is INCORRECT to say that you can “order a semi-automatic rifle online”, and have it delivered to your door, like a book from Amazon or something. Are you aware that you cannot order a firearm that is not an antique online, or through the mail?
“there is no doubt that if the acquisition of deadly firepower were made much more difficult, we could not help but see a decrease in Mass shootings.”
Absolutely. If we were to make it a death penalty offense, for example, to own a firearm, we would absolutely see a reduction in the number of people owning firearms. Just as, if we were to increase the penalty for 1st-time use of marijuana to life imprisonment in a labor camp, we would see a dramatic reduction in marijuana use. But again, the purpose of the Constitution isn’t to prevent crime. It’s to defend and establish individual freedom. Just because legislation would result in reduction of crime does NOT mean that that legislation is something we would want to enact.
“if your child throws rocks at other kids in the playground, the solution is NOT to give all the other kids rocks. ”
Relevance? We’re not talking about children. We’re talking about adults over the age of 18 exercising their 2nd amendment rights.
“We need to prohibit.. the sale of weapons to relatives, unless some sort of effective background checks preceded those purchases.”
This is another example of your not thinking something you write through before clicking “send”.
A)This would be completely unenforceable. There would be no way for the government to know to which relative a firearm is being sold or given, or whether it’s being sold or given at all. For one thing, “registration” of firearms is unconstitutional in most states (including my own), so the Federal Government doesn’t even know what weapons anyone owns (the FBI is required to destroy its records regarding background checks soon after they are completed). So how could they possibly know that I’ve given or sold my firearms to my children, or anyone else? Totally unenforceable and therefore silly.
Many people think that a “solution” to that would be to introduce universal registration of firearms upon purchase. Setting aside the fact that that would be monstrously illegal, unconstitutional and immoral, it would never work in practice. In that case, if it were me, I would buy my weapons, comply with the compulsory registration, and then shortly afterward report my weapons stolen or destroyed. All this does is place the serial #s of the weapons on a national database so that the police would be able to return the weapon to its rightful owner if it’s ever recovered. (Having recovered thousands of stolen weapons, I know that actual prosecution of a suspect for “possession of a stolen firearm” is exceedingly difficult, because often the firearm was stolen years earlier from a victim 1,500 miles away in another state, and that stolen firearm passed through 100 hands before finding itself in the current suspect’s pocket. And not only is that victim not going to travel 1,500 miles to testify in some local court, but it is nearly impossible to prove that the suspect in possession of the weapon actually stole the weapon or even knew it was stolen, since the original theft took place 10 or 15 years earlier, when the suspect was 5 years old.. but I digress).
And the authorities would have to take the word of the gun owners that their weapons were gone/destroyed/stolen/dropped into the sea– what are they going to do, search the millions of houses, apartments, boats, storage lockers, 45 acre farms, 10 square mile woods, of every single gun owner, searching for guns? Not going to happen. These weapons will simply suddenly cease to exist or have owners. So what you will have done is not ended, not even reduced, the number of illegal weapons on the street. You will have magnified it, exponentially.
B)One of the surest ways of ensuring that I sell (or give) my firearms to my sons is by attempting to tell me that I can’t. In fact, I can guarantee that if legislation were passed that “prevented” me from giving my property to my own (adult) children, that would be the first thing I’d do. And I don’t think I’d be alone in that, and I think Jefferson, Madison, and Washington would applaud from the grave.
This would be similar to passing legislation that I could no longer possess or drink alcohol, or give it away or sell it. I think within a week I’d be doing all of the above.
“It is also true that even our automobiles (large mobile objects capable of hurling down roads at 100+ mph.) are licensed, registered , re-registered have their license plates renewed annually, and cannot be driven by someone without an appropriate license of adequate insurance (in many states).”
This is truly an argument made by someone who doesn’t have the slightest understanding of the law, or of the difference between a basic human right and a privilege.
Owning a firearm is a BASIC RIGHT, ensured, FEDERALLY, by the US Constitution. On the other hand, driving a vehicle (or a horse and buggy) on a public road is NOT found in the Constitution, and is NOT a right. You do not have the inherent right to drive an automobile on a public road. It is a privilege, allowed and regulated by the STATES and MUNICIPALITIES. Furthermore, owning a car and keeping it in your garage or driving it across your 100 acre farm is very different from actually placing it on a public road and driving it– the former does NOT require a drivers license, registration or insurance (in fact the local police cannot stop you from driving your car drunk on vodka on your own property, or the private property of others), while the latter DOES. Do you understand the difference? Actually, if we were to use your (flawed) vehicular example, and compare guns to the laws governing vehicles, you ought not to be required to have ANY paperwork, registration, insurance, or special permissions to own your gun, especially if you kept it at home. Because, you are not required to register, insure, or be licensed to drive your vehicle, if you only operate it on your own property. Geez, this is civics 101. Anyway, comparing a right to a privilege doesn’t work– apples and oranges.
“it is obvious that police prefer gun battles with criminals who…”
In all seriousness, never say such a thing to a police officer, past or present. Police officers do not “prefer gun battles”, of any kind. Police officers do everything they can to AVOID a “gun battle”, because “gun battles” often result in injury, death, or property damage, or all of the above, not to mention taking the officer off the street, a gigantic investigation, possible loss of one’s job (even if the “gun battle” went well), possible lawsuits, and being pilloried in the press. That’s just not something you want to say. It’s similar to saying “I’m sure most rape victims prefer that their rapists be well-manicured and wear condoms…”
“who do not possess rapid firing semi-automatics”
What in the world is a “rapid firing semi-automatic”? Nowadays the majority of firearms being manufactured are semi-automatics, and “rapid firing”. I’m not sure what a “slow firing semi automatic” would be? Perhaps one with gunky and rusty innards? This is where total ignorance of the subject matter comes in. Some of the most powerful weapons in the world are not “rapid firing”. Many very powerful sniper rifles, and hunting rifles, for example, are bolt action. These rifles will send a round through 2 or 3 officers, even wearing body armor. Some of the most powerful pistols in the world are not “rapid firing”– the .44 or .357 magnum revolvers, for example. The rapidity of the firing is not relevant in these cases. For that matter, some of the most powerful semi-automatic pistols in the world are not “rapid firing”– the .45 Colt 1911, for example, fires a massive round, but is nowhere near as quick to fire as police-issued 9mm Glock 17’s, but the .45 rounds are much more effective and dangerous.
This reminds me of a training video we watched as part of our training. One of the most painful parts of training was having to watching the complete dash-cam videos of well-known officer shooting deaths. One of the worst is the death of Trooper Coates, who died at the hands of a, you guessed it, career criminal wielding a tiny .22 caliber derringer-type weapon. The video is available for all to see on Youtube– you can hear every agonizing scream of the Trooper as he succumbs next to his vehicle after being shot by a single tiny .22 caliber round that entered his arm and traveled to his heart. It is terrible but I would recommend that you watch it. Another extremely heartbreaking dashcam video is the 1998 video of Deputy Kyle Dinkheller being shot and killed, AFTER he fired at the suspect multiple times with his own “rapid firing weapon”, by a suspect wielding an antique, relatively slow-firing WWII M1 carbine. This video is available on Youtube and Liveleak as well. It is one of the worst examples that not just firing first, but firing “rapidly” and many times, does NOT guarantee victory or survival.
“high speed bullets” Again, what on earth is a “high speed bullet”? Sorry, but now we’re descending into the “gee whiz” category of “gizmos” and “doohickeys”.
“Where gun regulations are involved, it is obvious that police prefer gun battles with criminals who do not possess rapid firing semi-automatics, high speed bullets, drum magazines and even an assailant wearing body armor.”
Again, it is absolutely irrelevant, in a matter of Constitutionality, or even morality, what police “prefer”. Police prefer a lot of things. When I was a police officer, I would have preferred not to have had to read a suspect their Miranda Rights prior to questioning them– I could have gotten many more confessions. I would have preferred to have been able to search their houses without warrants– I would have found a lot more illegal firearms and narcotics, and saved many more lives. I would have preferred to arrest a suspect I knew in my heart was dealing drugs, and search them, without having actually observed them dealing drugs. Many would have preferred to be able to run the license plates of women they found attractive, in order to be able to date them. On and on. The point is, often what police would “prefer”, what would make a policeman’s job easier, is not Constitutional or moral. In fact, it is often the case that THAT POLICY WHICH MAKES A POLICEMAN’S JOB EASIER, IS MOST LIKELY NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. A really good example of that is a recent ruling that police can no longer affix GPS or other forms of electrical tracking devices to suspects’ vehicles, in order to track their movements. Back when it was permissible, it used to be one of my favorite ways to track where suspects were getting or transporting their narcotics. I “preferred” it, it made my job much easier.
In short, we must always err AGAINST the police, when making policy. This is the way it is in courtrooms– if an error in a judgement is possible, if there is any reasonable doubt, the judge must err in favor of the defendant, and against the police. That’s a cornerstone of our system.
But if we take your argument that that which police “prefer” must be taken as correct policy, then you have defeated yourself as well. I, and most former and current police officers, own our own weapons, often semi automatic rifles, because we tend to like firearms. Furthermore, every police officer I know, past or present, is obviously AGAINST banning semi automatic rifles– if we were for banning them, we wouldn’t own them ourselves. So wouldn’t you have to take our “preferences” to the bank…?
“Unfortunately the news outlets do sometimes ignore stories about gun violence because they are committed frequently by minority groups who might be living in bad neighborhoods.”
SOMETIMES??? How about most of the time.
“They may happen so often, that a newspaper (for example) might be labeled as redundant or single minded ..” You mean like the Washington Post, or the New York Times….? If there are more redundant or single-minded newspapers in the world (other than the Taliban TImes), I don’t know any. But yet, they continue to be read, digested, and taken as gospel by most people of a certain political bent.
“After all, their accuracy and ethical treatment regarding controversial subjects are big parts of their very reputation as reliable outlets.”
I don’t know many newspapers, or television networks, that are considered “reliable outlets” by a majority of viewers. Most people nowadays tune in to networks in order to bolster and cement their own biases. I was going to add that they read newspapers to do the same thing, but the truth is, hardly anyone under 40 reads newspapers anymore– it is going extinct. The same does not apply to news sources online, which have quickly become the most up-to-date and reliable sources for information, or at least more reliable than the newspapers and networks that exist with editorial agendas they want to push. It’s gotten to the point that, at least regarding the newspaper that covers my area, the comments from readers following the article online are almost more informative than the article itself. Anyway, if I want information about any specific crime, I go straight to the original sources— either by looking up the court and arrest records themselves, which are public information, or looking at the court documents or police reports themselves which are often available online. There is no longer any point to reading an article about a crime, written by someone who’s never been a police officer, who’s never worked a crime scene, and who was never even at the crime scene itself (as reporters are not allowed within a block of them). I’d rather look at the primary sources of information and make my own judgements, especially since as I’ve said many times, the newspapers usually get the facts wrong. And no, they don’t do retractions on every little detail they get wrong. They’d be doing retractions 24/7.
“But I cannot believe that, in the heat of battle–sometimes involving multiple shooter as well as more than one police officer, an officer always accurately remembers and interprets his experience with virtually no mistakes at all! ”
The point is, in the majority of crimes, the police officer’s account, that is, his report, is the only source of information about the crime. The report includes what every witness said, the evidence that was found (in most cases), the times that the events took place, where they took place, etc. It is a SUMMARY of signed witness statements, suspect confessions, etc. The police report is called an IBR– an “Incident Based Report”, which is required to be sent to the FBI, so they can tabulate all of the reports and come up with the statistics that many people, including those against the 2nd amendment, like yourself, are so fond of quoting. In other words, FBI statistics ARE the police reports. So if police reports are not correct, then neither can FBI statistics be correct. The FBI (and newspapers) have no magical omnipotent eyes in the sky that glean information from thousands and thousands of crimes that take place every night around the country. The FBI, and to a lesser extent the newspapers, are dependent on police reports to write their stories or do their jobs.
“In any case, I think that actually restricting the physical presence of guns and our physically ability to acquire them, will also provide benefits that keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals. If WE cannot buy them, criminals will find it more difficult to acquire them.”
Agreed. And restricting abortions completely would make it so that no botched abortions could ever be performed, no unethical doctors could perform abortions, etc. If the government shut down the internet completely, and made it more difficult for you and I to send email to each other, it would certainly make it much more difficult for Al Qaeda to send emails describing terrorist acts to each other. If we suddenly made it illegal to own a vehicle, it would clear up the traffic situation on the freeways overnight, and reduce the rate of traffic deaths by 1000%. If we were to outlaw alcohol, and its consumption and sale, we would reduce DUI’s and medical costs associated with alcoholism exponentially. If we restricted air travel only to those with 100% clean criminal records, it would certainly reduce drug trafficking, the risk of terrorism, etc. I do hope I’m making my point.
“Does that mean that we should completely ignore the problem and merely hope that it goes away?”
What problem? What are you referring to?
“Every potential, or current criminal will probably still acquire weapons one way or another, but simple logic dictates that not as many of them wil be able to complete the transactions required, prior to purchasing them!”
I don’t understand. What exactly are you proposing that would make it “more difficult” for criminals to acquire weapons, that doesn’t already exist? You seem to be arguing two different things– you want it to be more difficult for CRIMINALS to get weapons… and you want it to be more difficult for law-abiding citizens to get weapons. Is it both? Or one of the above? What more legislation do you want to put into place to make it more difficult for criminals to get guns, that ISN’T already in place?
“If WE cannot buy them..” Ok, but prohibiting us from buying them violates the Constitution. Are you arguing that the Constitution should be violated in order to make us “safer”? Didn’t Benjamin Franklin have something to say about security and liberty….?
“Most members of the NRA and other gun enthusiasts undoubtedly do use weapons properly, but no one needs huge ammo magazines or rapidly firing weapons, just for being a responsible owner!”
Need is irrelevant. Certainly, no one NEEDS to own and publish a newspaper, in order to be a responsible custodian of their 1st amendment rights… so why not ban newspapers? No one needs a blog to exercise their rights… so why not ban blogging? No one of any particular race NEEDS to go into a cafe, or sit in a certain part of a bus, in order to live and breathe… so why not ban them in such places? Certainly no one NEEDS to invoke their right to a lawyer– they could be perfectly happy simply talking to the police… so why not disallow any access to lawyers by prisoners? I hope I’m making my point.
The Bill of Rights isn’t about “need”. You don’t have demonstrate your “need” for something in order to do it. You don’t have to demonstrate your “need” to speak in order to speak. Sorry, but that argument is too easily refuted.
And besides, who are you to say I personally don’t need X Y or Z? Don’t you think that I, as someone who has served in the military and in law enforcement, has a better idea of what I “need”, than you do? What qualifies you to know better what I “need” in my life than me?
“For Christs’s we do the same with truck drivers because to drive an 18 wheeler well, and with a healthy regard for safety, is not something everyone can do.”
That is correct. Not everyone can pilot an F-35 jet fighter. Not everyone can pilot the International Space Station, or take charge of a submarine with multiple nuclear ballistic missiles on it. What on earth does any of this have to do with owning firearms? And once again, driving trucks is not a fundamental right. Owning firearms is.
“Once again, this entire gun debate revolves around providing adequate protection from violence to the public—not slapping the wrists of gun owners out of disrespect or arrogance. It really has to do with saving lives—something we all are interested in!”
A)It may “revolve around” it, for you. But that isn’t necessarily what it “revolves around” for me, or for countless other people. Come to think about it, for me, it revolves more around maintaining the 2nd amendment, and maintaining policy that the police do not “prefer”, to put it your way. It involves more maintaining a healthy fear or respect by the government (the “police”), for the people, who are armed about as well as the police. This is much more important than “providing adequate protection” from a problem that doesn’t exist. The need for “adequate protection” against a government that wants to overstep its bounds is much, much more important than attempting to pass legislation to restrict our rights.
B)If you truly wanted to “save lives”, then you would be putting your efforts into preventing deaths by stabbing– many, many more people die every year stabbed to death, than shot. Why are you not concerned about that? Have you volunteered as an EMT, to help injured people at crime scenes– the vast majority of whom are injured by ways OTHER than shooting?
Many, many more children are sexually abused every year than are shot. Vastly, vastly more. Yet, you have not spoken a word about it. Have you volunteered in any way to help with that problem?
I could go on and on. More evidence that for you, this is less about “saving lives”, and more about pushing your personal agenda.
I’m not going to respond to everything you said here at this time, Mr. Vasquez, since I’d be here all day and this comment really wasn’t directed to me. Besides, I’ve already addressed some of these concepts in other posts and will address others in the future. But the one thing I felt I should clarify here concerns your assertion that many more people die by stabbing than by gunshot. According to FBI statistics for 2011 (the last year for which figures are available) there were 8,583 deaths by firearm and 1,694 by sharp instruments.
actually here is another comment for Mr. Vasquez from me, Peter W. Johnson
Mr. Vazquez,
You said many outrageous things in your recent post, so I decided to write another response to it.
I don’t know where you get the idea that, because I would like to prevent the use of guns to commit violent crimes, including mass shootings, that I am somehow not concerned about crimes like rape, stabbings or child molestation—are there really many people that aren’t? Of course I support police efforts to prevent all violent crimes, but I don’t understand why that means I must have the “right’ to own every weapon that they, or the military uses! I also do not expect criminals to “waltz” down to the store to purchase firearms; although I don’t live in unicorn land, the entire point of my arguments is that it should be harder than it often is for any potential killer to obtain dangerous weapons. Where have you been while I have been defending these beliefs?
Why should it not be easy to for someone law abiding like you to purchase weapons online, since you are a responsible member of society? Because if you or I can get them easily, so might those who intend to kill innocent people! And by saying that semi-automatic guns should not be easily purchased by anyone, I only mean that all of us should successfully pass rigorous background checks and comply with all of the laws involved in owning them.
Its true that James Holms had difficulty purchasing an assault weapon, a shotgun, several pistols, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and even body armor, simply because he had no criminal background to disqualify him in Colorado. But if more stringent background had been in effect he may not have passed them—perhaps he would not have committed his horrible crime.
Please do me a favor and quit complaining whenever someone uses the erroneous term “assault weapons” to describe semi-automatics like AR15 when referring to mass shooters. Yes, semi-automatics can fire only 50 to 60 rounds per minute, but nearly once a second seems quite rapid to me! They do not rival fully automatic weapons like machine guns, but I still would have hated to be in the Aurora Theater the night a shooter fired randomly into a panicked crowd at least 50 times per minute, and, actually possessed a 100 round barrel magazine which enabled him to shoot 100 rounds before having to reload. The fact that a “slow semi-automatic” doesn’t exist, is exactly the point—exactly! I think it is tragic that when Holmes was stockpiling ammunition and acquiring large capacity magazines by purchasing them over the Internet, no one saw a red flag. For that reason I am not denying the importance of treating mental illness, but I am also in favor of restricting the physical access to weapon commonly preferred by killers because of the efficient way they can kill or wound a maximum number of targets in one minute.
David Baum, a journalist, wrote an article on (3-11-13) titled, “How the left “blew it on Gun control,” said, “Every gun guy in America was as horrified as Nancy Pelosi was. Who wouldn’t be, when referring to Sandy Hook? He also states that, “What worries them is being told you are not trusted with these things.” But, the point I am trying to make in this online forum is that no one is saying that responsible gun owners are to blame for violence like that in Sandy Hook either, and, no one is saying that they can’t be trusted with weapons. Sometimes I and others, no doubt display a knee-jerk typical liberal reaction when our left-leaning opinions are involved, and, it is understandable that gun rights supporters might be polarized by it. But the goal of my gun control measures would be in keeping semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of the criminals and mentally ill people who often use them. Sometimes necessitates more thorough back ground checks and limits on magazine capacity as well as wondering if semi-automatics are really so cool so as to be made easily available to so many people! Personally I am not concerned that any NRA members will rush up my front porch and shoot me with a gun, and it seems ridiculous to think that some people feel that way about a Democratic government. Let me mention to you some of the comments that polarize me.
Most gun advocates recognize that treatments for mental illness are critical in stopping gun violence or any other kind of violence—for that matter. But they refuse to admit that anyone might be more likely to use a gun to commit a crime, if it is readily available to him. Guns kill people, but those people cannot kill if they don’t have a gun in the first place. Our difference in philosophy is that, regulation does NOT automatically mean more restrictions and the eventual confiscation of our weapons, rather, to me, it can be a reasonable limitation on something which should not be seen as limitless i.e. The Second Amendment.
I also agree that most of our constitution is written to guarantee the freedoms of individuals—but not all of it! The 16th amendment describes how taxes should be levied and paid. And, unless you think paying taxes really helps all of us, it is difficult to see taxation as a way to protect our people. The 22nd Amendment limits the term of President to two four year terms. Whether or not this really constitutes protection depends on the person asked. And, the 27th Amendment is the last and, I think the one which most clearly is NOT designed, to protect average citizens. It places members of Congress in charge of raising their own salaries.
I understand that weapons commonly used in mass shootings may not be the most powerful available, but, a snipers rifle is not suited to a John Holmes kind of shooting in the first place. A lightweight semi-automatic weapon that can use a 100 round magazine is much more appropriate for shooting into a crowed theater, at a rate of up to 60 rounds per minute, killing and injuring the most people in a short time. And, Holmes may have been crazy but he was not stupid, and I would bet he carefully considered such factors. I have also read that many semi-automatic pistols are capable of firing rounds that move at 3000ft per second and can do much more damage than larger rounds that move more slowly.
As far as I can see the 2nd Amendment allows for the right to own “arms.” But, how does the fact that some may be regulated, NOT ensure some elimination of dangers to the public? How does registration infringe anyone’s rights? And why does the word ARMS, automatically allow us to own ANY weapon we want?
I am mystified by your mention of the fact that cars driven on private property may be driven on that property without fear of arrest—even though the driver may be drunk. How does this relate to a federal law which strengthens regulations for dangerous weapons? Is the shooting range you visit, always set up in your back yard? If you carry a concealed weapon, do you never go beyond your own property, or perhaps if someone breaks in, do you never defend against an intruder who might endanger your safety, or that of others? Or does it not matter if you deliberately murder your spouse while being at home?
In your post you include a list of convoluted and meaningless arguments like; stating that if abortions are completely outlawed that will eliminate botched and dangerous abortions, or that, if the government completely shut down the Internet it would make it much more difficult for the Taliban to send secret messages, and, if we made owning cars illegal, would reduce traffic deaths by “1000 %.” But none of these things are direct ways to improve or save human lives—without also suffering from their loss. You may think it is catastrophic if you were limited to only 10 round magazines on the rifle range, and you may think that banning automobiles is equivalent to ending all traffic accidents, but it will also cause many people to die en-route to the emergency room, or by allowing quick evacuation from a dangerous area. Likewise the Internet plays many essential roles in turning the wheel of our economy and the worlds, as well as providing relatively instant contact with others. Abortions may also save the life of the mother when an infant endangers her life during delivery, or must be done for other medical reasons. But how does being denied an AR15 while still having many other guns, disrupt the completely necessary functions of your life? You have consistently downplayed its power as a weapon, and if not used for self defense—which other weapons and smaller magazines also provide—you seem to have little use for it except to enhance your target shooting or increase your sporting skills! And has it occurred to you that all of these mundane and recreational uses are NOT guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment? To me it seems little inconvenience to be forced to change magazines three times rather than once while target shooting. It seems a trivial point to balance your inconvenience against saving human lives. And, although I may be frustrated that you can’t see my point, I do not think you are a criminal and I do not want to see you punished for crimes you did not commit! Saving lives is practical and using reasonable gun regulations to do so is also practical. If anything gun advocates who can’t see that, frustrate me!
In closing, Dan Baum said in Mother Jones, “It turns out everyone needs and AR15; it’s the only gun anyone wants. Have you ever fired one? If I put one of those in your hands and you shot at a target you would be awestruck by how well you shot. It’s like a guitar that makes everyone play like Jerry Garcia. It was not a particularly popular gun until the “assault rifle ban of 1994.”
It sounds like an awesome piece of engineering and must be fun to shoot, but since when does pride and joy of ownership trump the ability to save lives? I am not even saying that no one should have them—only that greater care should be taken to prevent killers like John Holmes and Adam Lanza, from getting them and then, killing innocent people. I am also not taking ammunition away—only limiting it to ten rounds at a time. If you use them primarily for target shooting, shouldn’t you be a little inconvenienced rather than those who are defenseless against attacker—who might prefer very large magazines? You may be responsible and fair, but every person who shoots semi-automatic “assault” weapons is (unfortunately) not! Disagree all you may want but don’t criticize me for merely considering what make sense to me!
Mr. Vazquez:
Two points:
#1
The purpose of the Constitution was not “to defend and establish individual freedom” or “protect our individual rights”.
Our rights and freedoms are unalienable; they are part of human nature itself. They are not created or granted by kings or constitutions; they are part of our birthright. As the Declaration of Independence established, we had those rights before the Constitution was even written or ratified.
Rather, the Constitution was “ordained and established” to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.
In a more practical sense, it was written to create a better system of government than the flawed and failed Articles of Confederation.
As well, the Bill of Rights was added to answer anti-Federalist charges that the new government would use its power to forcefully impose its will on the States against their will. The purpose of the first ten amendments was to clarify which powers had not been granted to the new government; to clarify what the government could not do. They did not create or establish rights or freedoms, because they already existed, and they did not protect these rights and freedoms, because they were already protected by the fact that the body of the Constitution did not grant the government the power to violate them.
#2
Firearm ownership is not a fundamental right. Neither the Framers of the Constitution, James Madison, nor the First Congress meant the 2nd Amendment to guarantee an individual right, regardless of what the Supreme Court now says (and this is the first time in its entire history it has made that claim).
For more information, see the following historical articles:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FinkelmanChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SchwoererChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/BellesilesChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/RakoveChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/UvillerAndMerkelChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HeymanChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/DorfChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm
Mr. Vazquez,
By “good guy” assaults, I was referring to those committing gun crimes, without previous criminal records. I also associate the term with the people usually defended by the NRA and gun enthusiasts in general, who are typified as upstanding and law abiding citizens, who we should have no concerns about concerning their responsible use of guns. My point was only in response to your repeated insistence that, almost all of the crimes committed with guns that you have encountered as a police officer, have been committed by those with previous criminal records or bad behavior of some kind, such as domestic quarrels for example. And, indeed, it is hard to imagine that your implications about solid citizens, who stand outside of being categorized as those having criminal records, are almost never involved in gun attacks, as you claim.
I didn’t expect you to write such a long post in response to mine and I don’t think I can respond to everything in it, but, I will list a few points of mine which you do not seem to get.
You frequently use supposedly logical examples which are not really relevant to the topic at hand i.e. the fact that other crimes like stabbings, rapes, child abuse etc. exist, has nothing to do with diminishing the need for preventing viscous gun crimes. It is also irrelevant if sometimes semi-automatics with large ammo magazines do not successfully defend against guns that hold less rounds or fire slower ammo. Do you mean, by bringing up these examples, that no one, including cops who are sometimes victimized during road side stops, should be very concerned if an assailant only has a Semi-automatic handgun or one that shoots rounds at high speeds? The adage that comes to mind is that, “whether the rock hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the rock, the results are going to be bad for the pitcher!”—a gun which holds less ammo and fires at slower speeds is definitely potentially dangerous—just as one which fires high speed ammo and is semi-automatic, also is! However, shooters like Adam Lanza apparently would much rather have semi-automatic weapons to efficiently commit their crimes of mass murder!
It is also not accurate to claim that I am trying to prevent crimes that, “hardly ever happen.” To be sure, mass shootings quantitatively, are much less common when compared with the number of many other gun crimes, but they are, IN NO WAY, NOT happening, and, they often involve dozens of people who are either killed or injured. Ask Congressman Gifford if they “hardly ever happen” and ask the secret service men that protected Reagan and Press secretary Brady if such attacks “hardly ever happen.” In fact why not question the members of the secret service themselves about whether they are just wasting their efforts when trying to prevent attacks on the President that, “hardly ever happen.”
Mother Jones has documented 62 mass shootings—defined by the FBI as killing 4 or more people in a single incident—and there are many other’s involving a number less than 4. Attempts by armed civilians are very rare and hardly ever successful—in two schools shooting taking place in Mississippi and Pennsylvania, in 1990, armed bystanders did subdued teen perpetrators, but only after shooting had subsided. More often than not, interventions by armed civilians only result in more deaths. So, the point I am trying to make is that even if mass shootings happen less than the numerous other crimes involving guns, this does not mean that they are not a problem, and their lower frequency does NOT diminish the importance of the absolutely devastating results they produce!
You also spend a great deal of time harping on my figure of speech involving the word “prefer.” Please don’t be so ridiculous! No one is saying that police are somehow in favor of ANY KIND of assault committed on them, AND YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANT, but, it is fairly obvious that with more fire power—including criminals armed with large capacity magazines—that these assaults are more dangerous to go up against than someone whose bullet chamber can only fire six rounds without reloading—or an attack from a gun that has no rapidly changeable magazine. And, are you denying that even bullets of small caliber, are sometimes more deadly simply because some can fire rounds at higher speeds—resulting in more damage?
One thing I am tired of having to explain to YOU is that my interest in additional regulations pertaining to higher capacity magazines and rapid firing weapons has nothing to do with wanting only to advance a personal agenda. Believe it or not, there are many of us who are concerned with providing safe environments in our schools and public places by making it difficult for mass shooters, when equipped with semi-automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, body armor, and thousands of rounds of ammunition, to kill innocent children and others. Are you prepared to accuse the parents of Newtown’s murdered children with only wanting to “advance a political agenda?” Is it so wrong to think that there has got to be some better ways to save lives?
I’d also like to get it through your head that, I am NOT AGAINST the 2nd Amendment! How many times must I repeat this? I am in favor of regulating some weapons and ammunition, as well as the ability for mass shooters to acquire them—NOT in preventing the ownership of all guns and ammunition! The reason I feel this way is that, ALL of our amendments aren’t meant to be taken as if they are written in stone, or, impervious to any changes that might become needed in light of circumstances and/or time!
AGAIN let me illustrate the basis for this opinion of mine by asking you to define the word “ARMS” as it is used in the first Amendment. This word literally applies to any kind of weapon. Its literal definition as ANY KIND OF WEAPON, when taken literally, would open up the doors to the possession of bazookas, flamethrowers, ICBMs and our personal stockpiles of Nuclear weapons—so if you ask me, I think we definitely need to define and limit the different kinds of weapons that this amendment refers to! What makes you think that, ANY kind of less inclusive definition is unconstitutional or unlawful? Even the right to vote, does not include the right to vote for more than one person for the same office or, more than once, in the same election! We also must REGISTER to vote, even though VOTING IS ALSO A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!
Regardless of your opinion that news accounts are almost always inaccurate (and this by definition includes online editions of the same periodicals) I still think most of the major outlets do attempt to live up to certain standards for accurate reporting. The facts in each story often change because—well, because as the story evolves, new facts usually come out. But, to suggest that news outlets have little or no stake in accurate reporting is patently absurd! We all know that various left and right wing publication cherry pick their facts and use comments made by biased individuals—this is unfortunately true—but are you saying it makes no difference if we get our facts form scandal rags like “Midnight Enquirer,” or any “daily snoop” kind of publication because ALL news reporting is inaccurate? In addition, none of our news outlets, reputable or not, can mange to publish all stories involving gun crimes. They are finite publications that must also report sporting events, local and national news, human interest stories, obituaries, opinion pages, and, for that matter, the latest recipe for Chili! It doesn’t bother me at if they cannot hold as much information as the Library of Congress!
Another thing you claimed is that criminals cannot order guns from the internet unless they are antiques. But if one Goggles the subject, many articles can be found that more clearly define the type of internet sales used by shooters like Adam Lanza. In many areas, the internet remains unregulated and allows mass-shooters to purchase thousands of rounds of ammunition and body armor in online sales relatively easily. The laws for purchasing fire arms differ from state to state, so sometimes criminals evade the system more easily, in some states than in others.
Many officials have pointed out that Lanza’s purchase of guns, which included a Glock pistol and a shotgun, were legal because he required no criminal background checks. However, he also purchased thousands of rounds of ammunition and body armor—including not only a tactical vest and pants but also a ballistic helmet, a gas mask, and a throat protector. Remember also, that the AR15 he used, had previously had been outlawed in the 1994 “assault” weapons ban. And, Mr. Vazquez, are you seriously suggesting that at no time in the history of gun sales, has a licensed dealer deliberately sold guns for cash or without initiating sufficient background checks simply because he could get away with it?
Without going on ad-infinitum, let me please reiterate that, I do NOT believe that ANY Amendment should NEVER be changed and, I think there are many obviously common sense measures that should be considered applicable when regulating certain firearms. In that sense, my analogy of a car, needing to be registered, licensed, and requiring a trained driver, etc. was not meant as an analogy about another constitutionally allowed possession—instead it was an example of another potentially dangerous possession, which ALSO, poses a credible threat to the public’s safety. If you want to stay within the 2nd Amendment boundaries, then I would mention the fact that, at one time Machine guns were unregulated in the US but were eventually well regulated and denied from being legally possessed by most civilians. And, it was for the same reason—because they represented A DANGER to the public!
Although Ronald Reagan was responsible for easing several gun regulations during his term, here is something he said in 1991 at Georgetown University:
“You know that I’m a member of the NRA, my position on right to bear arms is well known. But I want you to know something else. And I am going to say it in clear unmistakable language. I support the Brady Bill and I urge Congress to enact it.”
In 2004 President George W. Bush said, “I think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban.” And also, “I believe law abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere in order to make sure that guns don’t get into the hands of people who should not have them.”
Even Richard Nixon’s only on-the-record statement about guns is, “Guns are an abomination.”
So, Mr. Vazquez, it seems that a number of conservatives and famous Americans, more closely agree with me by insisting that, some regulation of firearms is both allowable and practical. Quit trying to paint me as some scheming ideologue simply because I would like to find a way to keep more of them away from mass-shooters. Especially if—gasp!—some regulations are actually needed!
i have tried to make this point repeatedly (on deaf ears) to the gun crowd when the say…”criminals don’t follow laws, so why should new laws have any effect..” or similar. i make the point that very many of the shootings don’t come from criminals – at least they weren’t criminals until they shot someone. Often we’re talking domestic violence, people known to each other, that sort of thing, as well as all of the accidents and suicides.
Do we have any reported statistics to say: 1. How many criminals are killed annually by law abiding citizens who own guns.
2. How many criminals are killed annually by other criminals who own guns.
3. How many legal gun owners are killed by criminals owning illegal guns.
4. How many law abiding citizens are killed annually by other law abiding citizens who own guns.
5. How many law abiding citizens who own guns are killed by other law abiding gun owners.
6. How many children are killed annually by legally held guns.
I think such statistics must exist but I’ve not seen them introduced to this discussion. T.
1. How many criminals are killed annually by law abiding citizens who own guns.: 201 “justifiable homicides” by non-law enforcement officers in 2011 per FBI stats
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-15
The questions 2, 3, 4 and 5 cannot be answered as they are ; outside of these 260 cases, a law abiding citizen ceases to be one and becomes a criminal as soon as he/she pulls the trigger.
Do you mean “people with no previous conviction” for “law abiding citizens”, and “people with previous convictions” for “criminals”?
To answer question 6, we need to know if “children” is under 18, under 16, 14, other?
Acquisition of a handgun is justifiably Mens Rea! T.
” i make the point that very many of the shootings don’t come from criminals – at least they weren’t criminals until they shot someone.” This is not correct. I served as a police officer in a major, crime-ridden city, and the vast majority of shootings are performed by criminals, often convicted felons, who shouldn’t have been in possession of the weapons to begin with. For example, in the space of 3 years, 3 of our officers were shot and killed, 2 while on duty, 1 while off. All of the shooters were convicted felons and known violent criminals, one having just been released from prison, another who robbed the off-duty officer, then shot him and left him to die. And of all the shootings (whether resulting in death or wounding, or were simply illegally discharging a weapon in the city) I investigated, or knew about, were committed by individuals who already had criminal records, often convicted felons, and most of these involved narcotics, or were gang-related, or were committed during a robbery, or all of the above. Also, only a tiny minority of shootings are domestic-related, and in most of those cases, the shooters were, again, already well known to the criminal justice system. Most of the domestic-related deaths I investigated were stabbings, which are far more common than shootings, and most of which take place in drug-infested low-income housing, and often involve alcohol. And, once again, done by people who are already very well acquainted with jail.
Which is exactly why the physical availability of gun in a culture which uses them so much, has a great deal to do with many gun crimes. It is not just the mind of a criminal or any other offender–not just the mind, because if loopholes were closed, or if background checks were done more thoroughly, many (not all) but many, crimes could not have happened if an actually physically present gun was not available to the perpetrator!
I can understand why some pro-gun people, feel that it is not going to be effective to ban many of the semi-automatic weapons available to mass shooters, but why in the world do they insist on the “freedom” to have large capacity magazines on weapons? I think it is a fair trade off for home owners to stop intruders with mere ten round magazines, especially if this will also prevent dozens of innocent people from being killed in shootings like Aurora or Newtown. And, if the gun industry would agree to quit making semi-automatic weapons that closely resemble more dangerous weapons that ARE capable of fully automatic fire, then surely weapons like the AR-15 would become less attractive to many of the unbalanced people who can easily get them from the Internet.
The gun industry plays a big role in the reasons these tragedies happens and, if they would just compromise a bit on issues like gun registration, universal background checks and/or the restriction or elimination of large capacity magazines, it would do a great deal to help diminish this problem!
“The point is that there are lots of people who think of themselves as good guys who end up becoming bad guys with their guns…”
It is completely irrelevant what someone “thinks” of oneself. I have arrested many, many criminals, including robbers, thieves, rapists, etc, who think of themselves as good guys. What counts is what the courts think of them. And in the case of Zimmerman, for example, he was found not guilty of murder, which, at least shows that the courts do not think of him as a “bad guy”.
” In both instances, a “good guy” was responsible for a tragic gun crime…”
Uh, no. In the case of Zimmerman, it was found that no crime was committed, which would make it impossible to have been “responsible” for one. And, if you are attempting to argue that Lanza’s mother was “responsible” for murder, then you would be arguing that she could have been arrested and prosecuted for murder had she lived. And this would not have happened. I have investigated many cases in which weapons were stolen from citizens, and those weapons were later used to commit assaults, murders, etc. And I have never arrested the rightful owners of those weapons, because the weapons were later used in crimes. I just can’t imagine going to the home of a family that was burglarized, for example, and arresting them, because the weapons stolen from them were later used in crimes. And this is what you are arguing SHOULD be the case. Sorry, doesn’t make any sense.
Actually, the jury in Zimmerman’s trial didn’t decide that no crime was committed; it just decided it didn’t have enough evidence to convict him of murder. But his conduct on this occasion and others indicates that he’s far from being a “good guy”, and it may be just a matter of time before he does commit a serious crime.
I’m not sure how relevant it is to discuss the culpability of the mother of the Connecticut shooter, but it’s very relevant indeed to note that the shooter himself was a “good guy” right up until he murdered a bunch of people.
Although it is certainly true that many offenders commit gun crimes after having some sort of other criminal offense records, it really doesn’t make sense that those who don’t have such records, would never commit crimes of passion, or for the first time—even though having a history of being solid, stand up citizens.
If we put a child in a room with matches, it is only a matter of time until that child sets fire to the room after his curiosity causes him to play with them. Likewise, I would presume that ANYBODY–ABSOLUTELY ANYBODY—who commits a crime, would be more likely to use a gun, if such weapons were easily available—including those with anger, passion and unexpected responses to stress who might commit their first crime with a gun!
Of course someone with mental illness, might kill in other ways as well, but why provide he or she easy access to weapons—in the same way that it would be foolish to leave unsupervised children alone in a room with matches. But what is so bloody awful about providing basic background checks that might keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill?
In fact, most employers ask prospective employees about their past (including criminal offenses) in order to prevent themselves from hiring someone who might end up being a liability to their businesses , as well it would with credit card companies that insist on financial background checks before doing business with an unknown customer. What do you think about these kinds of regulations Mr. Vazquez? Does their existence threaten the freedoms and liberties of people without questionable records? Do employers have no right to protect their own interests, just like the government has a right to protect the pubic from potential harm?—(providing for the common defense and promoting our general welfare)? How are simple background checks of those purchasing weapons any different—even if most people who buy them, really do not pose a threat to society? Should we make no effort to screen for those that do? or fail to check the backgrounds of people who might very well otherwise, pose as threats to the public?
The Manchin–Toomey bill was one of the least threatening bills ever devised to regulate the purchase of firearms. Senator Toomey already had an A rating from the NRA concerning his support of laws that permit for the private ownership of guns and, which defended 2nd Amendment rights, yet even he was puzzled as to why or how anyone would find offense at, or fear, the provisions in that bill. However, political pressure caused a small amount of Democrats to vote against it, and therefore sink it!
Its true that a very small number of flags raised during background checks lead to any prosecutions, but the same is true about the war on terror—does just one more World Trade Center type of catastrophe warrant the vigilance of our intelligence agencies, or does the relative infrequent existence of terrorist plots justify these agencies to do nothing?
The truth is that the NRA now exists mainly as a lobbying group for the firearms industry and has very little to do with real concerns about supposed violations of the 2nd amendment. If this were not the case, then practical and fair regulations would have been used much earlier and with less defiant resistance! If you want to help sell a controversial product, first create a conspiracy theory about your opponents, and a movement based on very little justification at all!
Thank you for your thoughtful, long response. I’ll try to respond to everything you wrote, point by point. Luckily for you, you are writing to someone who not only has served as a police officer in a large crime ridden city, but does fundraising for the NRA. (I am not employed/paid by the NRA, though).
A)”Although it is certainly true that many offenders commit gun crimes after having some sort of other criminal offense records, it really doesn’t make sense that those who don’t have such records, would never commit crimes of passion, or for the first time—even though having a history of being solid, stand up citizens. ”
Well, all known crimes, in the United States are known because they are a matter of public record. All police reports are available to you, as are all court minutes/verdicts/decisions, all witness testimony that was recorded, etc. So research into crimes is not a matter of “not making sense”, it’s a matter of public record. So, I challenge you to find someone, who was found guilty of shooting anyone (whether just wounding the victim, or killing), who has NO CRIMINAL RECORD, and NO CRIMINAL INVOLVEMENT whatsoever, previously. We are not talking about voodoo here, we’re not talking about a paranormal or supernatural investigation, with no basis in fact. Almost everything involving known and adjudicated crimes is verifiable– which is exactly why they were adjudicated. So, if you believe there is a case, or cases, of people who have shot someone, without any previous involvement with law enforcement at all, please present such cases here. I would certainly accept court testimony as evidence, or police reports, or any court records available online, etc. In my state, you can look up anyone you wish, online, and see their entire court history. So this task would not exactly be difficult. Please take this opportunity and do so. Remember, whether something makes sense to you or not is irrelevant, when presenting an argument. What may not make sense to you, probably due to a lack of experience with this sort of thing (and by ‘this sort of thing’ I mean dealing with shootings, murders, criminals on a daily basis for 12 hours a day, almost 365 days a year, for years on end), may be as clear as day to someone who HAS had such experience.
B)”Likewise, I would presume that ANYBODY–ABSOLUTELY ANYBODY—who commits a crime, would be more likely to use a gun…”
Again, presumption is not evidence, and is often not a safe or wise thing to do, when making a scientific inquiry, or presenting a case, etc. I would like to presume that I have won the lottery and am now a billionaire, but such a presumption would have little value to anyone other than myself. Now that I think about it, in the American legal system, the only thing that can be presumed is a defendant’s innocence… but that’s not quite the same meaning you have in mind, I think. Again, if you feel you have evidence to back up what you are claiming, then please present it here. But until then, I must treat it as if you were stating you were presuming you’d won the lottery.
C)”Of course someone with mental illness, might kill in other ways as well, but why provide he or she easy access to weapons—…… But what is so bloody awful about providing basic background checks that might keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill?”
I do not know what country you live in, or are familiar with, but in the USA, it is illegal for a person who was found mentally unfit by a judge to purchase a firearm from a dealer— this is according to FEDERAL LAW, and is enforced by the ATF. Background checks are already a matter of Federal law. No one, that I know of, wants to rescind said Federal law. I certainly don’t. In other words, background checks are already the law of the land… I am not trying to be flip, it just seems you are not aware of this.
D)”In fact, most employers ask prospective employees about their past (including criminal offenses) in order to prevent themselves from hiring someone who might end up being a liability to their businesses , as well it would with credit card companies that insist on financial background checks before doing business with an unknown customer. What do you think about these kinds of regulations Mr. Vazquez?”
What I think is is that you don’t realize that it isn’t “regulations” that causes employers to want to check employees’ backgrounds, or lenders to check the creditworthiness of borrowers, it’s just common sense. I could be wrong, but I don’t believe there is a Federal or State law that says “Employers of Toys R Us (or any other company) shall check the backgrounds of any potential employees before hiring them”. i don’t think the government could care less if Jack In the Box hires felons, which I’m sure they do– that is purely company policy.
Furthermore, I have no idea what getting a credit card, which is basically getting a loan from a bank, and signing a contract, or promise, to pay that bank a certain interest rate every month, in exchange for the use of a large sum of money at one’s will, has to do with possessing a firearm. Unlike a firearm, a credit card itself has no intrinsic value– it is simply a worthless plastic SYMBOL of a contract or loan. And a lender would be wise to make sure a borrower has good credit before loaning him money. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the connection between a legal contract between two people (a credit card), and a firearm. There is no contract between the buyer of a firearm and the seller, after money has exchanged hands. Just as if you were to go to a used car lot and purchase a Jeep in full with cash…. no contract. Certainly there is a warranty, just as there would be a warranty on the firearm, but this is far from being a contract. I’m thinking apples and oranges here, sorry.
I was going to write that unlike a credit or debit card, you can’t take a gun to a bank or ATM or a Walmart, present it, and get money or goods in exchange… but I thought better of it… that’s humor.
E)”Do employers have no right to protect their own interests, just like the government has a right to protect the pubic from potential harm?”
Absolutely not. I understand where you’re coming from, in a very general, hazy way, but no. Absolutely. Not.
Civics Lesson #1– governments don’t have rights. Only individuals do. I need to make that very clear, because if that very basic point isn’t understood, nothing else can be, at least constitutionally speaking.
I will repeat, for effect, as we used to say in the military– GOVERNMENTS DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS. ONLY INDIVIDUALS DO.
Furthermore, your likening a government to an “employer” is disturbing to me. As if you felt, deep down, that we are all “employees” of the government– we are somehow subordinate to it, and we need it for “protection”. Again, I don’t mean to sound flippant, but I’m afraid that only someone who has a very profound, profound, profound misunderstanding of what government is, or should be, would liken a government to an “employer”. And no, governments do not “have the right to protect their own interests”. Their purpose is to protect the rights of the people.
Furthermore, the purpose of the Constitution is to PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT– it is a LIMITATION on the powers of government…. but that’s a discussion for another time.
F)”Should we make no effort to screen for those that do? or fail to check the backgrounds of people who might very well otherwise, pose as threats to the public?”
See above. I already wrote that I am in no way in favor of rescinding Federal law, which already mandates background checks. And, see above also, that you don’t seem to be aware of this.
G)”The Manchin–Toomey bill was one of the least threatening bills ever devised to regulate the purchase of firearms. Senator Toomey already had an A rating from the NRA concerning his support of laws that permit for the private ownership of guns and, which defended 2nd Amendment rights, yet even he was puzzled as to why or how anyone would find offense at, or fear, the provisions in that bill. However, political pressure caused a small amount of Democrats to vote against it, and therefore sink it! ”
I have no idea what is in this bill. But I don’t understand what the bill would present that doesn’t already exist in Federal law, or in my own state’s law. Federal law and my state’s law already regulate the sale of firearms, to a level (actually beyond a level) at which I think is perfect. What, SPECIFICALLY, does the bill do, that doesn’t already exist in either Federal law or Virginia state law? Once again, I will repeat, BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE ALREADY THE LAW OF THE LAND. That is what you are harping for, and it already exists. So I’m puzzled as to what this bill says that you’re so enamored with. Please be specific. Please, SPECIFICALLY, list what the bill proposes, that doesn’t already exist in the law today. Don’t say “background checks!”, because background checks are already the law of the land. Be specific.
H)”does just one more World Trade Center type of catastrophe warrant the vigilance of our intelligence agencies, or does the relative infrequent existence of terrorist plots justify these agencies to do nothing? ”
No one is recommending that intelligence agencies do nothing. What many people ARE saying is that for pete’s sake, intelligence agencies should not be listening to our phone conversations (without Probable Cause and a warrant), especially not based on the political positions of said individuals or groups. Intelligence agencies should be following the law. And, of course, I am referring, for example, to the latest scandal of the NSA listening in on phone conversations and emails of private citizens and private organizations. Which leads me to mention the NRA, which has actually joined in a lawsuit, alongside the ACLU of all people, against the Federal Government, due to the NSA’s actions. And with good reason.
I)”The truth is that the NRA now exists mainly as a lobbying group for the firearms industry and has very little to do with real concerns about supposed violations of the 2nd amendment.”
This comment is so devoid of evidence to back it up, I am wondering where to start. I suppose I’ll start by saying that you are assuming that the only firearms that exist in the United States are THOSE WHICH ARE YET TO BE MADE. In other words, you are assuming that there are no existing firearms nowadays– there are no firearms in the hands of private citizens that were manufactured in the 1890s, or 1920s, or 1950s, or 1990s, etc etc. My point is that the “firearms industry”, once it sells firearms, has no claim on those firearms. The firearms industry does not benefit from firearms it sold 50 years ago, or 20 years ago. What good does it do to “lobby” for the hundreds of millions of firearms that are already in the hands of citizens? Furthermore, most firearms I own are foreign-made— some are Kalashnikovs, manufactured in Soviet Russia at the height of the cold war… others, like a Walther P-38 that my father gave to me, which he himself took from a Waffen SS officer he’d killed on a German battlefield, was made in Prussia…. is the now-defunct Soviet Tula weapons factory, or some underground WWII German pistol factory being “lobbied” for? Does the current Russian maker and importer of AKs have a “lobbyist” in the NRA? Silliness. Furthermore, you are apparently unaware that the greatest employer of the American Firearms Industry is the United States Government. Just last year, for example, the US Marine Corps awarded Colt a contract worth tens of millions of dollars to make their M45, replacement for the M9. And that’s just one tiny contract, for a pistol. Almost every police department, both Federal, State, and local, not just in the US but in Europe etc uses Glock pistols— a company headquartered and owned by Austrians, not Americans, and for which the NRA would have no reason to lobby— meaning that Glock gets hundreds of millions, if not more, of dollars a year from GOVERNMENT entities, the world over… far, far more than they get from buyers among private citizens… so if there is a giant lobbyist for the firearms industry, it’s the US Government. And you’re worried about the NRA lobbying….? Phooey.
And, frankly, even if the NRA were lobbying for firearms companies, which it is not, so what? The US Government not only lobbies for auto companies, it bails them out. It lobbies for and bails out many other industries as well, including banks. As if we’re shocked that the US Government would be involved at all in the military/industrial complex…. as the French gendarme said in Casablanca, we’re shocked, just shocked, aren’t we?
Mr. Vazquez,
I didn’t expect such a long reply to my earlier post, and I don’t know if I have the time to make a point by point rebuttal but here are some replies to your post;
I asked you in an earlier post not to expect me to scour the entire police data base in order to state the opinion that it only makes sense, that some gun crimes are committed by those with no prior criminal records or without prior criminal involvement. But, if I may offer some criticisms I would include that, firstly, you are probably aware of crimes in your own metropolitan area, and I doubt you have really examined all the specifics of gun crimes committed throughout the country. Secondly, you are discussing all crimes that are known to have been reported and crimes in which defendants have been found “guilty” by a criminal court. And, as the POP pointed out in his post which was titled (I believe) “Make My Day Mention gun Statistics,” many of the reported interventions which supposedly prevent fatalities and harm in gun attacks, are statistically, impossible to have happened in such numbers, as well as the fact that they do not distinguish specifically, for example, that some interventions result in even greater harm to the people involved. Other crimes are also probably reported with the use of subjective claims that may not really be accurate, along with the fact that some gun “studies” are not done with scientific analysis, but are rather the result of telephone surveys—perhaps one of the least accurate ways to collect data. I see no reason to believe that some of the same subjective twists and turns might apply to the reporting of shootings in which individual were first time offenders without prior “criminal involvement,” not to mention all of the incidents of gun attacks which are never reported.
Yes, common sense is not always a basis for good argument, but it is also indispensible when juries examine the evidence and decide that reasonable doubt has NOT been established. George Zimmerman was a prime example not of someone who was found innocent, but rather, someone who was NOT CONVICTED, due to a lack of evidence. And the Colorado Theatre shooter had no prior assaults or involvement in violent crimes, yet we know how that case turned out. Yes he had a mental illness, and still passed background checks but, a major component of gun regulations have to do with improving the accessibility of data about mental illnesses in basics background checks, which are often subject to differing laws in different States! I also have read about many of the crimes committed that are reported about in our local newspapers. They are sometimes violent and sometimes involve guns, but rarely have I seen a comment made that involved a perpetrator’s complete record of previous crimes or a listing of their prior criminal involvements. And, if their perpetrators previously had a spotless record, (except perhaps having a repeat record of DUIs) the paper often sees no need to disclose that fact. To me it would indeed seem to involve voodoo or some other supernatural influence if no shooter had ever used a gun for the first time to commit a crime—even if they were upstanding members of the city council or the local PTA. Crimes of passion are often committed for a number of reasons, and may involve those without prior criminal records.
When I brought up the use of background checks by prospective employers and by credit card companies, I was not attempting to equate every differing financial and social reason which necessitates them, with gun crimes—I was only trying to use examples of the many ways that simple cautionary background checks are definite parts of our society. Someone who buys a gun may not have problems with credit or may be employed by a boss who doesn’t do a background check (feeling no need to do one) but screening gun purchases has a direct effect on preventing risk to the public. Something a credit card company (with the exception of identity fraud investigations) does not really do, and buying a gun will most likely not risk the financial security of possible employers. These are distinctly different cases that involve background checks, but the basic foundation of them all, is that they exist to protect certain entities from risks, harm and abuse!
I would also add that your conception of the proper function of government is not etched in stone nor is it the only way to view the subject. The preamble to the Constitution specifically states that the Constitution gives the United States, the power to, “insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,” and, “Promote the general welfare,” to, “secure, the blessings of liberty.” In that sense our military exists to protect all of us from forced invasion and/or physical harm. The colonialists had no direct say in the way the government of England functioned but were still subject to its oppressive laws—we do have a choice! It’s called voting and petitioning our grievances to our government and legislators— something which the colonists were unable to do!
I must say that if you consider that the Obama Administration or any other Administration, is actually scheming to disarm you of your guns, (for God knows what purpose), or that the government could not prevent its current President being impeached before he could ever go on such a mad power trip, you are mistaken. I have often asked those with such opinions to provide any believable scenario describing such a take over, and how that could possible happen in a Representative Democracy? It is far more unlikely than the possibility that the TEA PARTY could seize complete control of Congress this year! Sorry if I don’t humor you—but it’s just impossibility! Could you actually provide a credible scenario of how this could ever really happen?
My claim that anyone would be more likely to use a gun to commit a crime, specifically stipulated cases where one would be easily available. So, say you want to kill the lady across the street (just hypothetically) and you were sitting in a room with many semi-automatic weapons or other firearms—are you saying you would not be likely to choose one of those guns rather than a knife or a paper weight?—especially if this were a pre-meditated murder? Yes, you might use something else—but what about that AR15 in your lap?
Yes, it is against the law to buy a weapon without a background check, but there are several ways to get around this legal roadblock. First of all the person who sells you a gun, may covertly choose not to give you a background check (for whatever reason) and secondly, almost anyone can find underground websites were they can purchase just about anything they want by using sophisticated encryption and a special untraceable internet currency. Dealers at many gun shows are also able to sell for cash directly out of their own vehicle’s trunks, or may choose not to even document the sale. The attempt to regulate guns, merely seeks to prevent such situations—not to make anyone Obama’s slave!
If those of your mindset are so calm about basics background checks that already exist, then why all of the commotion and angst about the Manchin-Toomey bill which did not deny anyone’s rights but merely, sought to improve requirements for purchasers at gun shows, and to facilitate more effective screening on the internet and at actual gun stores? Toomey really was amazed that anyone could have opposed this bill with the argument that it restricted freedom. Here is a link to that website, which discusses the bill and its specifics, on a pro-gun, online journal:
http://www.guns.com/2013/04/10/senators-reach-deal-on-universal-background-checks-its-not-gun-control-video/
As far as the NSA—its function is also to protect us from terrorist threats by using mega data gathering. Sure, some irresponsible agents may use its capabilities for personal reasons, but that’s clearly illegal. And, as to why the government would even want to read the actual content of all the billions of text messages, cell phone messages, and emails that are sent everyday, the answer is that they don’t! Just like Postal service employees are free to read the addresses and content descriptions on the packages they receive and deliver, but are not free to open that mail without a Court order based on reasonable suspicions, but they cannot, and hardly are ever even interested in, reading any of our own personal emails. They seek FISA Court Order, only when a pattern of calls from our numbers, are made to known terrorists or to those suspected of terrorism, or, because of some other suspicious activities. By doing this, they have probably been able to foil a number of terrorist plots before they happen.
I am a complete supporter of 4th amendment rights, but, the main reform needed to regulate the operations of the FISA court and the NSA, is to provide a public attorney or representative at court procedures, who can then advocate for the contention that further investigation may not be warranted in a certain specific case.
Obama didn’t invent FISA and neither did Bush—it has been around since 1979 and has always been known to members of Congress—so attempting to crucify Obama for it, is merely another witch hunt launched by the GOP in order to provide a public forum to spread undue criticisms about the government.
Since I cannot write all day, let me just address your conception of Lobbyists and Lobbying. The English Dictionary defines Lobbying as: “to try and influence public officials and, especially legislators.” Its goal is to influence Congress—not the other way around! So, Lobbyists are hired by special interests like the gun industry—to influence the Government. Consequently, I don’t understand your claim that the Government lobbies “for” special interests, rather than being influenced by them. The only way the government lobbies companies is as a result of massive influence from legislators who already have special interests, and/or, belong to political caucuses that can wield considerable power, or, by who have been persuaded by industry lobbyists to support a certain company or particular special interest group. When companies were bailed out by the government this was done to avoid complete financial collapse. Where else would these companies have obtained the hundreds of billions of dollar needed to stay afloat—from other companies who were desperately floundering themselves?
I don’t buy the argument that the government should have no interest in legislating ways to protect Americans physically or from other specific social dangers. The next time you eat some chicken that is infested with ecoli bacteria, ask yourself if it is really that threatening to depend on the fact that the FDA (although presently much too inadequate in its scope) can identify which products are contaminated and then warn us all as part of dong a pubic service. And, is it just government’s intrusion on business to provide guidelines that can protect such future outbreaks? Again, these are analogies meant to establish the need for government protections, not to perfectly parallel the specific factors involved in the regulation of guns.
If you currently accept, without anguish, the claim that adequate gun regulations already exist, why fight tooth and nail against even a few specific and minor changes—such as improved background checks like those in the Manchin Toomey bill? I hope you will visit my link to the bill, since it provides statements from the co-authors, as well as an overview of the proposed bill, and the option to click on a link which reveals all of the specifics details in the bill.
By the way, are you denying any financial investments by the firearms industry in America—just on the basis that many weapons are imported or are already grandfathered away by private owners? Isn’t that an attempt to use a straw man argument by convincing me that no manufacture of guns or marketing of them to increase sales, exists in America, and that therefore my claims that affirm the NRA’s business interests are completely invalid?…I think not! The government may be a prime customer of the gun industry, as any Nation with a large military would have to be, but don’t think it cannot also be involved in regulating the availability of weapons which are so terribly misused in so many domestic assaults and mass shootings. And realizes that the intent is not to disarm citizens but to find answers that can keep those who use guns for violent crimes, from having easy access to them!
Mr. Vazques,
I have no idea why the coments on this thread are so much out of order, but as far as crimes being committed by those with no criminal records and who are new gun owners, I do mention that I have found several studies that conclude those without previously owning guns, and without other criminal convictions, do definitely commit gun crimes.
In my post way back, I listed the names of these studies and the statistics involved. The conclusion is that although first time gun owners without previous criminal convictions, or records, do actually commit about 2% of our gun crimes. That is far less than those who have owned guns for a long time, or who have definite criminal histories, but at 2% of many millions of gun owners, this amounts to up to 1,600,000 new owners without previous records. To me that does indeed represent a significant amount.
My mention of the lobbying efforts of the NRA, is meant to alter the perception that it acts only as some ideological advocate for what some may consider sane or patriotic when claiming absolute and indisputable first amendment rights. The truth is that very few of the 80,000,000 gun owners in America are members of the NRA nor do they approve of unlimited or unbounded freedom to own guns.
Whether the government is a large purchaser of guns is really a straw man argument, because what is at stake is the way the NRA ensures that guns be regulated as little as possible not matter how they may affect the public’s safety. Would you say that 80,000,000 private gun owners, with 100,000,000 guns is an insignificant amount of business, or, that because many guns are purchased from other companies, that somehow erases the importance of such a numbers? Do you think that banning certain weapons would not interfere with some of the profits earned by the gun industry?
What I often see in the statements of gun advocates is an overly simplistic way to bog down issues with endless semantics. In this respect, what do you mean by scoffing at the reality of high speed ammunition? Tell me, is all ammunition fired at the same rate of speed? And, contrary to the laws of physics that, the speed of a projectile makes no difference in its destructive impact?
I haven’t got all night to argue about the meanings or each and every term you or I use. And, in that sense, why bother comparing the fairness of regulating instrument that are specifically designed to kill with regulating automobiles or paperweights which are definitely NOT designed to kill—add infinitum, add absurdum!
I have no desire to carry on an endless argument about, say, whether the sky is really blue, because conditions are sometimes cloudy, or that sunrises and sunsets contain many crimson hues. We all know that very few assertions cannot be made without also discussing exceptions to them—but the point is that when I say the sky is blue, you know definitely what I mean without resorting to endless semantics! Sometimes explanations are in order if a genuine doubt occurs about their meaning, but few of the concepts on this thread have not been explained to you over and over again—but to no avail.
I think it is rather childish to endlessly argue about concrete facts with spins and semantics. So, if you want to imply that the NRA does not lobby in Congress, that is only so much hot air! Its also a straw man argument to excuse such lobbying, whether other industries lobby or not! the influence of the NRA on gun legislation is what we are talking about—and that kind of argument doesn’t negate it’s political goals!
If you have read my previous posts which have challenged and disproven many of your ideas about gun owners who had never owned guns before, or never been involved in gun crimes before, then you have failed to provide answers to them.
As the saying goes—we can all believe that whatever we say is true, but we can’t make up our own facts (and expect others to not to notice)—my addition.
I don’t know, “oregonnotary”. I have arrested many, many people for “gun crimes”, the most common of which is possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (and the least common of which is actually firing the weapon), and I can’t think of one of them that was, in most realistic respects, “a good guy/girl”. In fact, most convicted felons aren’t what you would call “good guys/girls”. And most firearms possessed and used illegally are by people who shouldn’t have them to begin with– convicted felons. The idea that most gun crimes (which again, is usually possession of a firearm by a felon, or robbery, etc) are committed by otherwise law-abiding citizens is a myth. It is difficult to be a felon in possession of a firearm without being a a felon to begin with….
Was the Newtown shooter a felon?
“It’s important to remember that there’s no magical dividing line between armed good guys and armed bad guys”
I would say there is a pretty stark dividing line between police officers and those with criminal records, especially convicted felons. To say otherwise would be foolish.
Every criminal commits a first crime. Sometimes that even includes police officers. A crime, any crime, is committed by a person or persons with the motive, the desire, the opportunity and the means. And there is no magical dividing line between individuals who do not have those things and those who do. To say otherwise is naive.
Mr. Vazquez,
why? because it is “common sense?”
So if It’s important to remember that there’s no magical dividing line between armed good guys and armed bad guys; and the “good guys” are in fact responsible for a great many gun crimes then why let the military and police carry guns? After all they are mere mortals as we are and just as pron to do evil as we. So let the state disarm all of us and pass laws to have each one of us placed in a home built like a prison so we can be safe from our neighbors, bars on the windows and locked steel doors that only the government can open. Then if a good citizen goes bad we are safe. Of course if the government [made up of people like you and me] go bad they can terminate you and I at will. And weaponless none of us would be able to do anything to defend our lives from this arbitrary government decision [run by imperfect men and women like us] The potential for mankind to do evil will never leave us. That is why it is an inalienable right for me to be able to defend my own life. Remember that Cain killed Able without a gun. Cain simply rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. Morel of the story…you do not need a gun, a knife or a club or bow and arrows to kill. If evil is in your heart and you turn from good toward evil than one only needs to surprise an unarmed person and kill them with a rock or their bear hands. I for one will keep and bear arms. As Colt said in the 19th century when he invented the revolver. “God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal,” Also an armed population is a polite population.
vpertoso,
Just mentioning that human beings are fallible and claiming that since people can be killed with any type of weapons, is not a sufficient reason to advance a takeover theory—especially in America where we have a strong division of powers that would not allow for easy control by any executive, or by any President and/or his party. If anything, such a crackdown would immediately be met with cries to impeach the President—even assuming that all of the police force and military would blindly obey a commander in chief that ordered such lunacy?
You are correct that human beings will murder anyway they can, but proposing easy access to ballistic weapons, without any attempt to weed out criminals and the insane from possessing them, could not conceivable help the situation. Under your view of human nature, we might as well get rid of the police force and the military completely, since even enforcing our laws would not prevent any abuses from potential killers or hostile nations. You are really advocating anarchy–something which has never been good for a civilized society. So, why should we even lock up convicted murderers or try violent offenders in a court of law?—according to you, human nature would negate any efforts to eliminate a threat from any kinds of criminals, and only vigilante actions by armed good guys would work. But good luck to your well being in any kind of apocalypse which would becomes all the more possible when helped along by the belligerent distrust and paranoia which is so common among radical interpreters of the Second amendment!
Anarchy may be exactly what he wants, if he’s a right-wing libertarian like L. Neil Smith: the total eradication of any government control or oversight in favor of a free, voluntary, unrestricted market. Under such circumstances, the only restraint any armed person would feel would be the so-called Zero-Aggression Policy, or “ZAP”. Except that everyone would be free to voluntarily ignore it when it suited their purposes.
Biochemistry,
You are probably right, since those who feel threatened when their supposed rights must give way to public safety issues, must want to write all of the rules over again to suit themselves—public safety and welfare be damned! And, being someone who thinks we should be ruled by a representative democracy, that is designed to, at least eventually, include the wishes of ordinary citizens as expressed by the power of their vote, I would not want my own conceptions of a sane society jeopardized by someone who refuses to accept the established norm—especially when it is represents the best, and most sane, route to take.
As far as I am concerned, winner take all cannot be good, and yelling fire in a crowded theater should not be permitted unless their really is a fire. But in a country like America, we have to be damn sure that a fire even exists, before we disrespect the law by taking it into our own hands!
Please read my articles before commenting on them. You’re trying to rehash specious talking points that I’ve already disposed of — including the absurd notion that either American Democrats or German Nazis (despite their inaccurate name) were ever socialists. I did not say that the Nazis didn’t practice “gun control”; on the contrary, I said they did. But they didn’t ban guns, and their firearm policies were not instrumental in their rise to power or subjugation of the Jews. “An armed society is a polite society”? Then I certainly hope the U.S. doesn’t get any more polite. I’m afraid it couldn’t survive a higher courtesy quotient.
The British are terribly, terribly, polite and they banned all handguns in the last century. T.
I can’t think of any nation less polite than the U.S. Coincidentally, I can’t think of any nation more heavily armed.
“I can’t think of any nation less polite than the U.S.” And what do you base that on?
Well… how about… the fact that I can’t think of any nation less polite?
Ah. I thought maybe you had some kind of worldly knowledge or experience related to the politeness of various nations.
And you were right. I’ve lived many years, met many people from many other nations, and visited other nations. And I haven’t seen a level of rudeness anywhere that rivals that of Americans.
Personally, I blame Fox News. And the gun culture. And Sarah Palin.
These are, of course, more symptoms than cause.
What causes our unsurpassed levels of impoliteness?
For once, you’ve asked a good question. I only wish I had the answer. Unfortunately, that kind of research is not my field. and people who do research such matters don’t have definite answers either. But whatever the root causes, it’s clear that Fox “News” and the gun culture and Sarah Palin (among many many many others) are not helping matters any.
“Despite over 50 mass shootings in the last few years, not one has been stopped by a “good guy with a gun.”
That is not true at all. Just because it didn’t make national news doesn’t mean it never happened. Just one example:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-uber-driver-shoots-gunman-met-0420-20150419-story.html
It’s not just one either, there are several more, you just don’t hear much about them. I guess not sensational enough.
I choose this one in particular because:
1, The only person injured was the mass shooter
2, It wasn’t a cop, ex cop, military or ex military
3. A simple cab driver with a permit to carry
The mass shooter was shooting into a crowd, the hero (IMO) shot him before he could do any damage.
“Despite over 50 mass shootings in the last few years, not one has been stopped by a “good guy with a gun.”
That is not true at all. Just because it didn’t make national news doesn’t mean it never happened. Just one example:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-uber-driver-shoots-gunman-met-0420-20150419-story.html
It’s not just one either, there are several more, you just don’t hear much about them. I guess not sensational enough for national news or perhaps some bias.
I choose this one in particular because:
1, The only person injured was the mass shooter
2, It wasn’t a cop, ex cop, military or ex military
3. A simple cab driver with a permit to carry
The mass shooter was shooting into a crowd, the hero (IMO) shot him before he could do any damage.
No doubt armed citizens have occasionally used guns to stop crimes and prevent deaths. But really, how frequent are situations like that?
The NRA and many gun advocating sites have completely exaggerated the numbers by suggesting that many thousands of armed citizens prevent shooters from killing innocent victims by using their own weapons. But as the POP mentioned in previous posts, many “studies” have really amounted to nothing but numerous phone calls which amass statistically unsound “facts.”
Let’s say that gun owners hypothetically prevent 100 lives per year from being snuffed out by criminals or by the mentally insane–how much would such evidence suggest to gun advocates like yourself, that it’s really worth it to allow massive unregulated ownership of guns?—Before you answer, consider all the counter-arguments gun advocates and members of the NRA have used to minimize the damage done by mass shooters—claiming for example that, only deranged or criminally minded people use guns for crimes, or that loss of life at the hands of armed shooters is really very small and insignificant? No doubt The actual number really are not that high in comparison to the huge population of the United States and elsewhere. But why then, do such small numbers suddenly become so significant for gun advocates who base their arguments against regulations, on the idea that such regulations are so ineffectual that they are essentially meaningless and may actually raise the number of shootings in certain areas? Do you get the double standard being applied here when a gun advocates insists conversely, that even if few crimes and murders are really thwarted by armed and responsible gun citizens, in regards to saving lives it’s still worth it to keep guns from being regulated at all? Suppose the numbers of these also are really are not high as evidence frequently suggests—would you still be willing to make the argument that, even if only a few lives are actually saved by armed citizens, it’s worth it to allow conceal and carry permits everywhere in the nation?
So therein lies the truth! No doubt most advocates of unregulated gun ownership would emphasis their beneficial effects even if they really saved very few lives, but would not acknowledge the same argument for regulations, likewise based on the idea that such regulations will only save very few lives.
Guns don’t kill people, but we people kill people every time we refuse to employ simple measures that might actually save the lives of someone’s, child, husband, or close friend by making it harder for a deranged person to purchase or use weapons. But, if a gun advocate even faces the (suggestion) that, the lives saved by armed citizenry are actually very few in number, that is never enough to awaken in him or her, the fact that even a few lives saved as the result of improving gun regulations, are somethin priceless. Why then, does that double standard exist?
So 5 years before the holocaust they restricted guns, then banned Jews from having them period. 7 years later Hitler described an armed population as a threat to dictatorial powers. You sure showed us what’s what.
Glad we have professors like you to dictate what is and is not propaganda. #SARCASM
Read some of the other comments here — and perhaps a history book or two — and you may discover that your sarcasm is unwarranted.
A U.S. Supreme Court Judge once said, ” there are rights that we all have and then there is the right thing to do”. Constitutional rights,sometimes written 200 years ago, can often have difficulty relating to time. The constitution is supposed to be a dynamic document and we seem to think of it as static.
It’s the “conservatives” (and we all know that means radical reactionaries these days) who are proponents of originalism. But they are more than willing to suppress the traditional understanding of the 2nd Amendment (and to abrogate the 1st) in favor of a reinterpretation expressed as the 2008 Heller case, which culminated from increased political activism of the NRA after they had a conservative “coup” in 1977. It’s OK if the Constitution is a “living document,” unless you are a liberal or just someone who would like the Constitution to not exclude people from having basic human rights.
Yes, that’s pretty much how other counrties are veiwing the US and that’s one reason I got out as soon as I could. I don’t consider myself a liberal, but a progressive and I don’t like what the conservatives are doing to my country.
Myself like other American ex pats can’t imagine moving back to our home country because of how the right is acting.
Indeed. Even if you are a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, who owns and enjoys guns and served his/her country, they don’t care, they just call you a libtard the second you say something so extreme as “Maybe not every swinging dick should have a weapon used by infantrymen.”
Reblogged this on TheBarkingAtheist.
[…] The Myth Of Hitler’s Gun Ban. […]
So glad I found this! Thank you!
The Gun Give Us Equal Rights in a Moral Civilization
Written on Sunday, July 29, 2012 by Daniel Greystone
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under ‘threat of force.’ Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that is all there is.
In a truly moral and civilized society, like the Western civilized world we live in, people predominantly interact through discussions of persuasion. In our moral society, force has no place as a valid method of social interaction. There is only one thing that can remove force as an option; that is the ability to have a personal firearm. As paradoxical as it may sound, let us look at why having a personal firearm reduces force.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to have a discussion with me in order to persuade me. This is because I have a way to negate your threat; which is a bad employment of force on me. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100 pound woman on equal footing with a 220 pound mugger; puts a 75 year old retiree on equal footing with a 19 year old gang banger, and puts an isolated person on equal footing with a carload of drunken people with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender of life and liberty.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of a bad force equation. These are the people who think that we would be more civilized if all guns were removed from society. Do they think this way because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do their job? A mugger can only be successful if all of their potential victims are disarmed. Disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity if all the mugger’s potential victims are armed.
People who argue for the banning of personal firearms are really asking for us to be automatically ruled by young gang members, the strong of evil intent, and those that would do us harm. This is the exact opposite of a civilized and moral society, or are we missing something here? A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted a force monopoly where no one else is as armed as they are.
Then there is the argument that a gun makes civil confrontations more lethal that otherwise would only result in some minor injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party who would be inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser by force; not reason. It is proven that there is less crime where all homeowners are required to have a gun in their home than places that ban them.
There are people who think fists, bats, sticks, and stones do not constitute lethal force. They are watching too much TV or see too many movies. In these warped environments, people take severe beatings and come out of it with only a bloody lip at worst. The fact is that the gun does make lethal force easier but know it only works in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, there is a level playing field which seems fairer than any other option.
The gun is the only weapon that is as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as a force equalizer if it was not equally lethal and easily employable to everyone who welds it. Without one, you are vulnerable; with one, you are equal.
When I carry a gun, I do not do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I am looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means I cannot be forced; I can only be persuaded. I don’t carry it because I am afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It does not limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason; it only limits the actions of those who would do me harm by force. It removes force from the equation… and that is why I carry a gun. Carrying a gun at my side is a civilized and moral act, because without it, only harm can come my way.
Adapted from Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
So, the greatest, most moral civilization in this world is one where all citizens are equally armed and each person can only be persuaded through discussions; never forced by a thug.
Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/the-gun-give-us-equal-rights-in-a-moral-civilization/#ixzz2HWGLhNtW
You make the false assumption that only reasonable people will have the guns. Sad experience proves the opposite.
Just a minor detail – but unless you are either the original author of this, or have his written permission to republish it, then you’ve broken the law. It’s called copyright.
So, is it that you don’t really have any true understanding of the law, or that you don’t see any reason to obey the law unless it’s convenient for you to do so?
This article is wrong on many levels,
1, jews were not a handful of people but a significant portion of the population.
2, the hubris of a these Jews fending off Nazis with hunting rifles and pistols is not hubris at all as in the case the Warsaw ghetto Uprising where Several hundred resistance fighters, armed with a small cache of weapons, managed to fight the Germans, who far outnumbered them in terms of manpower and weapons, for nearly a month. As well besides being able to successfully hold their own they inspired multiple other uprisings that resulted in heavy losses to the Nazis
3. the article glazes over the point that Jews were prohibited from owning weapons under the weapons act of 1938, which is just before those same Jews, no disarmed, were rounded up and put into ghettos and then liquidated.
4. the speech quoted is one I have never seen and I look for stuff like this all the time, but the article does admit that Hitler states that conquered people having access to arms is the downfall of tyranny which IS the quote that i see repeated most often, a quote that is verifiable and historically accurate.
5. every instance I have ever seen quoting this gun regulation that led (obviously) to the disarming of Jews and the subsequent round up of them states the dates accurately.
So to recap, Hitler enacted gun legislation in 38 that banned weapons from a group of people that he almost immediately after rounded up, imprisoned and liquidated, The disarmed Jews once rounded up, smuggled illegal weapons into the ghettos and severely outnumbered and outgunned, held off the nazi army for a month while inflicting heavy losses and inspiring others to do the same.
So there is no “Myth” at all about this historical event. Gun control was used to disarm people in preparation for genocide. just as it has been used all throughout history to pave the way for democide of millions and millions of people.
any attempt to contradict this historical fact and the logic behind it is beyond the scope of serious discussion. It is like talking to a tea bagger about climate change. They ignore the facts, the numbers, the science and the history and spew thinly veiled attempts at bad reason and shallow logic that does not hold up to serious critical thinking. It is laughable and a real shame.
What do you think the Americans, British, French and Russians did when Occupying a defeated Germany. They confiscated all the guns. Then mostly the Russians proceeded to kill about 10 million Germans. Read “After the Reich” http://www.amazon.com/After-Reich-Brutal-History-Occupation/dp/0465003389
Your reply is equally wrong on so many levels.
1) If your definition of ‘significant’ is under 15% of the population. At the beginning of Hitler’s reign, the Jewish population of Germany was approximately 12%. That is about the percentage of the global population Judaism makes up today.
2) Warsaw is not Germany. It is Poland. They were under INVASION.
3) The horrors inflicted upon the Jewish people were not exclusively because they were left without the right of gun ownership. They were also left with no right to employment, no right of property, no right of their bank accounts, no right to their personal property, no right to assemble, no right to move freely in the cities or country, no right flee oppression,…Do I make my point yet?
The Jews had every Right systematically stripped away while the population had been poisoned to their very existence. All of these things happened gradually over time BEFORE the 1938 law to remove their right to gun ownership. German citizens were participating in the isolation of the Jewish people into Concentration Camps. They did not care to know what was occurring at those camps once the Jews were off and away out of sight.
4) No comment other than, I find it funny you would believe you know every possible quote a past world leader might have made. That a quote you never saw before might exist, seemed to blow your mind.
5) You seem to forget that post WWI Germany had gun regulation prior to Hitler’s legislation of 1938. It was part of the Peace Treaty at Versailles. The ’38 law only restricted the Jewish people from gun ownership.
Your attempt of debunking the debunking is unsuccessful. The Far right elements of the Gun Rights movement consistently refer to Hitler’s 1938 as being applicable to ALL Germans. That is incorrect. It only applied to the German Jewish people, and Jewish people in each country Germany occupied.
Cudos to you, P.O.P. for standing up to this drivel. I was raised with guns, hunting regularly. I still own guns, but no assault or automatic weapons. I was also a member of the NRA for a short while, until I started actually reading the materials they distribute. It was absolute propaganda, from beginning to end. I dropped my NRA membership and started looking closely at the gun control movement immediately, to which I count myself a supporter. There is no reason we shouldn’t be able to own and use guns within reason. Possession of unreasonably dangerous weapons should be limited to the military, and the military must be controlled and limited by the government.
Further, we need laws in place to maintain a registry of weapons, their owners, and how those weapons are secured from abuse by uninformed youth or mentally unstable adults. Every weapon in civilian control should be trigger-locked and placed in a securely locked location.
I’m sure many agree with me, and some disagree. Unfortunately, the latter group includes my father, who’s been caught up in the propaganda so long we cannot even have a reasonable conversation about the facts because he takes all the NRA propaganda as reality.
Thank you for your support and facilitation of reasonable discourse!
[…] The Myth Of Hitler’s Gun Ban. […]
This entire article is a basket of red herrings.
I’ve never seen this page before, but well-written. Personally, I think there should be an IQ test required to own a gun. You know, to keep it out of the hands of lunatics (like Patrick here).
Just out of curiosity, why do you always capitalize the word “NAZI”? It’s not an acronym.
I don’t always, although it has become a stylistic quirk of mine lately. It’s not exactly an acronym, but it is an abbreviation.
You have one error in this article, or perhaps, just misleading. The 1928 gun registration actually *overturned* a full gun ban and allowed private gun ownership for the first time after the Versaille Treaty. So the gun law was a relaxation of stricter gun laws.
Patrick ! I ‘am German by birth American by Choice.God Bless You Keep up the good fight .Not all are brain washed yet and hear the truth you speak and some others hopfully wake up befor it is to late.
Thank you. I love America !!!!! we all need to wake up get of the coolaid…..
I agree with the Founders, that every American has the right to possess a muzzle-loading long-barrelled flintlock rifle, so that they can join a well-regulated militia, and practice having two ranks reload while one rank fires. That’s what the writers of the Constitution guaranteed. Breech loading weapons and bullets with powder included, let alone repeating automatic fire and 100-round magazines, were unimaginable to them. I’m a strict constructionist, here, unlike our selectively strict Supreme Court: the Constitution comes with directions for its own amendment, because, in their wisdom, the Founders knew that society and technology would change in ways unimaginable to them. I believe they’d be astonished at the mayhem devastating our country, and the insistence in some quarters that they had insured our “right” to bear incredibly destructive weapons.
P.O.P., you are now my hero!!
Thanks! It’s certainly not the worst thing I’ve been called. 🙂
[…] https://propagandaprofessor.net/2011/…tlers-gun-ban/ tho […]
Before I begin, I want to express how much I have enjoyed this entire segment and the following comments. I studied quite a bit about WWII and the Holocaust in my college years, but I certainly learned a lot more by reading this whole page.
With that said, I believe your attempt to debunk the myth of Hitler is a little off. It seems you are trying to convey that the “gun nuts” in this country point to Hitler taking away people’s rights to guns as the temple upon which they base their opinion is fallacious (or based on inaccurate information), but your example of Jews being denied the right to own firearms undercuts your point. While it seems true that Hitler “loosened” gun laws for others, he still denied them to his target (the Jews) and then they were subsequently annihilated. What’s more is that you also later admit that Hitler really only allowed “his” people to own guns, which means he didn’t truely “loosen” gun laws but merely expanded ownership to people in his party, military, etc. What I’m getting from the “gun nuts” argument is that they want to own guns to protect themselves from another Hitler-like event where Hitler took guns away from the citizens (or at least a portion of the citizens) and expanded it for the government-run military. And what I’m getting from your argument is that yes, Hitler did take guns away from some citizens but expanded it mostly for the government-run military. The result in either argument is the same: the Jews died in part because they were denied permits for and access to guns.
I’m afraid your argument has a hole in the point and it seems to support the conclusion that anyone can be denied the right to own a gun in this country and subsequently exterminated as was done in Nazi Germany. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I’m not paranoid about the government, but that seems the pretty logical conclusion from these arguments). And in this case I have to side with proponents of the right to bear arms as it could very easily be me that gets denied the permit to own a gun for any number of criteria: I’m a woman, I’m not a Republican, I eat organic food, I have pets, etc. Plus, when I look at the statistics on gun-related crime: while the US ranks highest in gun-related crime, the percentage of gun-related crime against all available guns in the US is nearly miniscule.
Cheers!
I’ll address some of this in a followup post.
When you do, would you mind replying to my comment with that link?
If our guns are taken away in America, P.O.P and his liberal friends will be raping, pillaging and murdering the American populace!
I’m trying to picture myself raping, pillaging and murdering. Without a gun, no less. It’s too comical for words.
@Jonathan,
Just because that is something you would do to a group of people you oppressed, does not mean all people think that way.
Personally, I think some of the far right of the Gun rights movement might need a Viking raider to reign down on their delusions of government invasion against its citizens. On a side tangent, that whole ‘legitimate rape doesn’t cause pregnancy’ is debunked by Viking DNA in so many global populations. Kind of like Genghis Khan’s offspring. But then again, the Vikings assimilated themselves into the very communities they raided. They established trade routes, so what started out as rape and pillage led to established relationships.
Tracey, I actually live in Chicago and see what has happened because of the gun ban… 500+ murders last year. My neighborhood is one the safest in the city only due to the fact that most of the homes do have personal firearms.
On a side tangent, I am over 50% Scandinavian 😉
Also, as a Christian, I have no interest in committing the crimes
above. I just know history and human nature and want to protect myself and my family from it.
“In a land with no law, guns become the only law”.
This is what America has become.
Brilliant strategery, bringing up Chicago, if you’re trying to make a case in favor of gun control. Chicago enacted a ban on hand guns in 1982. The murder rate went down. The murder rate continued to trend downward until 2010, when the SCoUS overturned Chicago’s law and cheap hand guns were once again easily available. Since then, the murder rate has spiked.
So, thanks so much for making such a great case for gun control!
Imagine the propaganda hitler could have used if the Jews shot German soldiers. Outcome I fear would have been the same but a lot quicker. Don’t believe any country would have stepped in to help the Jews either.
Interesting debate but its like flogging a dead horse. It isn’t 1938 or 1776 anymore and using history as an argument for or against gun laws seems bizarre to me. Only my opinion.
You have far more patience than I, P.O.P. As a gun owner who has no problem with common sense regulation, all I’ll say is If you think your guns will protect you from a tyrannical government, you’re not just a paranoid nut. You are an idiot and a fool. Unless your collection includes fleets of supersonic stealth fighter-bombers, aircraft carriers, missile carrying drones, satellites, surface to air missiles, Abrams tanks, long range artillery, depleted uranium ammunition…
Grow the bleep up, gun nuts, wingnuts, loonytoonians. You’re looking even more stupid/crazy than before. Who’da thunk it possible?
“Unless your collection includes fleets of supersonic stealth fighter-bombers, aircraft carriers, missile carrying drones, satellites, surface to air missiles, Abrams tanks, long range artillery, depleted uranium ammunition…”
I hear this argument a great deal but it appears to lack support based on history and the actions of our own government. Small arms supplied to the rebel groups in great numbers by the US and, in the past, by the Soviets. Indeed the reason why the AK-47 is so prevalent is because of this fact. When the US was supporting the Afghan rebels against the Soviets it did not provide aircraft, tanks, long range artillery or carriers, it provided small arms (granted, there were likely some advisers as well). The point of this is that the insurgency becomes such a strain on the superior force that it becomes an unsustainable action or, as in the case of the American Revolution, you reach a position of credibility where another power will come in on your side. The very essence of asymmetric warfare that the US, the Soviets, the British and many others have encountered and failed (see Afghanistan (US and Soviet), Vietnam and the Anglo-Irish War). I guess the point is, all of these conflicts are fought with small arms against superior forces in training and equipment. Without the small arms, no rebellion/conflict. This is why the US engages in this “support.”
Unlike major conventional weapons as you listed, which are most often procured solely by national funded armies, small arms and light weapons cross the dividing line separating military and police forces from the civilian population.
All of these characteristics of light weapons (Low Cost and Wide Availability, Lethality, Simplicity and Durability, Portability and Concealability) have made them particularly attractive to the sort of paramilitary and irregular forces that have played such a prominent role in recent and past rebel conflicts. These forces have limited financial and technical means, lack professional military training, and often must operate in remote and inaccessible areas—all conditions that favor the use of small arms and light weapons. At the same time, many states have increased their purchases of these weapons for use in counterinsurgency campaigns against ethnic and political groups and to suppress domestic opposition movements. The fact is, the small arm is the weapon of choice.
Going back to the thread a bit, it is an interesting question if armed Jews could have made enough of a problem for the Nazis. One could envision “Crystal Nacht” going a little different.
“One could envision “Crystal Nacht” going a little different.” One could, were one to ride a toy train of logic to its inevitable flaming wreck. The fact is that Jews in Warsaw had guns. Jews in Prague had guns. Jews in Paris had guns. Fat lot of good it did them. To claim that if only German Jews – of which there were fewer than 200,000 – had guns, the Holocaust would never have happened is risibly absurd, considering tens of millions of other European Jews weren’t banned from owning guns and still fell prey to the Nazi war machine.
On the “Was Hitler a Christian” question: The Bible is the bottom line source of what are or aren’t the defining characteristics of “a Christian”. Although it leaves room for debate with regard to those who are trying to live as Christians, it does actually leave very little room to wonder about those who, by their actions, show that they reject everything Christianity teaches and stands for. To expand on an earlier poster’s analogy: Someone who can do fairly advanced math may or may not be a mathematician, but someone who calls themself a mathematician, yet cannot even add (or who refuses to accept any/all mathematical precepts), is not a mathematician…merely by the definition of the word. The room for doubt in the case of the one who can do sophisticated math (they might be a janitor who just happens to be good at math, for instance, but still neither do math as a job nor even like to or be willing to do math) does NOT change the fact that the math illiterate who calls themself a mathematician is definitely NOT a mathematician.
[…] The Myth Of Hitler’s Gun Ban. […]
[…] Story is located here […]
[…] the way, Hitler actually expanded gun ownership rights in Germany in 1938, but why let the facts get in the way of a good scare […]
I just wanted to say thank you.
Having never read the Federalist Papers before, I took the opportunity, at your suggestion, to actually read #29. With all the different interpretations of the Second Amendment out there I feel better equipped to engage in a more enlightened dialog.
As a favorite English teacher used to say, “Context, it’s all about context.”
Whenever a politician, or anyone else, starts talking about regulating guns, it’s a safe bet that someone will bring up how Hitler supposedly outlawed guns in Germany, which supposedly enabled him to do “all the mischief he did.” So you’re trying to sell killing millions of people as mischief? STFU you tool.
Are you unfamiliar with the rhetorical device of ironic understatement?
But the concept of a handful of citizens armed with hunting rifles and Saturday night specials fending off an army is delusional hubris peculiar to gun addicts.
Right! Sort of like the American Revolution is hubris and never happened that way.
.
And “addicts”. It’s really hard to have a national debate and discussion aimed at curtailing violence when so many self-righteous people are so condescending and demeaning of the opposition viewpoint. Take note of the crimes AND victims prevented by someone protecting his or her own family with a legal weapon to balance the scales. But don’t let the facts (The U.S. rate of violent crimes has DECREASED over the last 20 years – FBI stats) get in the way of a good sarcastic and insulting rant.
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. No thanks, I’ll take reasonable measures to defend me and my own including my neighbors if need be. You can rely on the police.
The distinction between the revolutionary army (or any revolutionary army) and an armed citizenry has already been touched on, as has the distinction between gun addicts and gun owners.
My BIL share this on FB– enjoy reading your commentary. Will be following you now! Keep going!
Could you possibly provide sources for this so that the crazies can at least feel shamed into silence?
Yes, I plan on adding some links either to this post or the followup I’m planning. But don’t expect the “crazies” to be overly impressed by documentation.
I have an uncle who’s a holocaust denier. Makes family get togethers… “interesting.”
If the Jews did have arms the Holocaust still would have happened. The only difference would be no concentration camps because they would have all died fighting the Nazi army.
I must say, P.O.P – this has to be one of the most entertaining comment boards I’ve ever read – this is sooooo bookmarked. Lots of great points to be used at a later date.
Hitler had a dog. Obama has a dog. Need I say more?
I warned you. You should have stopped.
The thought occurs to me, with all this talk of “What if Jews had guns in Germany?”, that a huge armed resistance might have accelerated Hitler’s plans of extermination. With a demonstrable “security threat”, the majority populace would’ve potentially been even more behind him and he could have openly pursued extermination much earlier.
The reality, though, is that once Hitler came to power, the Jewish population were in a losing situation regardless of their armament. To me, the whole discussion of “weapons against tyrants” is a bit of a red-herring, as it is more important to try and determine what we need to do to keep violent tyrants from ever *gaining* power, rather than trying to fix tyranny once it has arrived. The latter scenario is, in my view, akin to trying to figure out which band-aid to put on a bullet hole.
Another tangential thought: those talking about how Afghans were able to hold off the Soviets for so long don’t seem to acknowledge that the Afghans had (a) the home-field advantage, having lived and survived in the country in conflict which the Soviets did not, and (b) support of the native population, which can shelter them, feed them, and mislead the enemy. I don’t think Jews in Germany had either advantage. Also, would-be American insurrectionists would also run into similar problems.
Very well put.
The Afghans also had covert and massive weapons support from the U.S.
All of the arguments using hisory about taking guns away
Reblogged this on While you were sleeping .
P.O.P – I posted your piece on a news aggregation site, Snip.it. I got this response: Do you know what, if any part of this is fact? Any help appreciate.
“Don’t be so naïve ~The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by the pre-Nazi government who wanted to curb “gang activity,” violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party. Under the law all firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? But gun control did not save Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.
The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they ‘lawfully’ took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not “reliable.” Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.
In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other “reliable” people.”
The last two sentences are especially suspect. Here’s the 1938 law in a nutshell, nicely summed up on Wikipedia:
“As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.” Under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition.”[4]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[6]
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns’ serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.”
Overall, it’s unmistakable that the Nazis significantly relaxed, rather than tightened, gun restrictions.
Thanks for the help. I didn’t know where to begin.
I read through quite a few of the comments but toward the mid lower portion I just ran out of patience so I apologize if this has been brought up before or not:
So some are saying if the gun rights of Jewish Germans had not been taken away (along with a myriad of other rights) that they could have defended themselves. Then there is the counter argument that the small armed resistance that could have been attempted would have been futile, and the holocaust would have persisted, albeit bloodier. Then the counters to that and so forth.
I just wanted to bring up one point that slappy magoo made- “If the Gestapo knocked on the doors of Jews only to be met with gunfire…by the time they got to the third door, they would’ve stopped knocking and just started shooting.” – in addition to a violent reaction by the Gestapo in response to some sort of armed resistance, such an occurrence would likely have fueled support for the German government of not only German citizens but perhaps the rest of the world- no doubt the armed resistance would have been painted as a rebellious terror group refusing to adhere to German law, and stomping out the group would have been not only a top priority but an encouraged and supported one- perhaps subsequently Germans would have argued that the response of the genocide of millions of Jewish people, as well as other “threats to the nation”, was justified, given the resistance that the authorities had faced, while performing their “civil service”. The United States already took a long time to join the allies, and even then only after a direct attack. Perhaps if the above scenario was the case the Germans could have spun it in their favor and our world would have turned out completely different. This, like all of the “if they had been armed” speculative scenarios, is just as likely, and like all those scenarios, is moot.
Thank you for this comment. I can’t believe so many people here have this idealized picture of WW2 history in which it was always crystal clear to everyone who were the good guys and who were the bad guys and which side to be on. Sure, in retrospect (and for some people, of course, also in the course of it) it became clear that a world in which Hitler had any kind of power was not a world most people would want to live in; and that what happened to the Jews (and others) was not “just” what had happened around the world many times before (and since), namely displacement and genoicide – that is, it was that, but on a massive, industrialized scale. But for the majority of people at the time, Hitler was just another dictator and WW2 was just another horrible war; they could not see it as we do now. History with a capital H is always the past in view of the present. If people back then had known everything about Hitler and Holocaust AND viewed it exactly like most people do nowadays, the United States would not have hesitated in joining the allies. But they didn’t, and they did.
” the United States would not have hesitated in joining the allies.”
The United States did not hesitate to join its allies, and by 1939, no honest person had a shred of doubt about the nature of the Nazis. The opposition to the U.S. participation in World War II, even to letting Roosevelt lend monetary support to England, was led by Republicans, who were willing to do anything to frustrate President Roosevelt. This is essentially the same problem we have today; Republican hatred of Democrats inevitably trumps their patriotic responsibility.
Lol ok ok P.O.P we get it, Hitler was a great guy. Jeesh none of this story means a damn thing to people who just wanna be left the hell alone by our current tyrant!
“Hitler was a great guy?” That’s what you get out of all of this? Seriously?
Excellent piece of well researched work. However, if one was looking for a flaw, one finds a problem that the author still believes in the mainstream historiography’s version of the Holocaust, and I quote: ” And it has become an article of faith among the gun culture that had they been armed, the Holocaust would not have happened (that is, among those members of the gun culture who know that the Holocaust really did happen).”
Well researched? Where are the links? There aren’t even any references to source material.
Hitler wasn’t a vegetarian even though he tried to convince people he was. But as far as gun control by the right-wing goes, the opposition dominated congress in Chile pushed through a gun registration law. In the early hours of the coup against Salvador Allende, the military seized the gun registration records at police departments and then seized the weapons of known Allende supporters (and the supporters themselves) first. What followed is well known.
Ah, yes, let’s just forget the US backing that brought Allende to power…it was gun registration. If only the Chilean citizens had another handgun, they could win against the tanks. Hmmm…wonder why the Shah of Iran was overthrown just by women marching on the palace..no guns at all.
To the retard from Texas posting bible verses… Are you really Christian? What bible are you reading. Bless ‘Merica!! Please!
Next time, post the scripture word for word cause you are missing a few things. The word meat…
Meat is good for you, in moderation… Veggies are also good for you.. And you can eat as much of them as you’d like. I don’t care if you’re a vegetarian, but don’t post false Christian scripture trying to convince others being a vegetarian is holy!
Holy crap you suck Texas!
-Alaska
Wow, the outpatients are really out in force here. Very interesting original post, professor.
the gun nuts will be gun nuts no matter what facts they are presented. i have no problem with guns, hi capacity mags are a bigger problem than the individual firearm, but the gun nuts are gun nuts because it gives them a stiffy thinking about being all rambo-esque and heroic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4
i think they use the 2nd amendment and the defense against tyranny as a shallow excuse to own guns. i think the truth of the matter is that it gives them a stiffy.
I keep seeing where the gun-control community debunks this as a falsehood, something made up, yet here is it and it’s source:
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” –Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke
This does not constitute a ban on guns. And perhaps the key statement here is “So let’s not have any native militia or native police.” He was talking about prohibiting those types of organized units rather than private ownership of guns.
Reblogged this on The Accidental Survivalist and commented:
This is a good read.
It is interesting how the argument can be made that Hitler did not ban guns by limiting that argument to the population as a whole. Yes, Jews were not allowed to own guns or even a stabbing weapon, but the people in the Nazi party were allowed to have guns so that is not really a “gun ban”.
I suppose if all registered weapons were confiscated in the US except for those in law enforcement and those who agreed with the administration who banned the weapons then that would not be a gun ban either. Except to those who had been banned from owning weapons, but they do not matter.
Except, the Nazi Party was more than just limited to law enforcement. They were a political party as well as a social party, like the Moose Lodge & Elks Club. People had to decide if they wanted to join the party or risk losing their jobs or otherwise raising some red flag. The Hitler Youth was part of the Nazi Party, a training program for potential officers or other officials.
So your comparison would be ‘more accurate’ if you included expanded law enforcement and included: the GOP, All of Alaska and Texas, The Moose population (yes, the animal) of Maine, The wild hogs of SC, the KKK enrollment of 1921, and the global Harley Owners Group.
No, you’ve got it backwards. The GOP doesn’t want to ban guns. The Democrats do. So your comparison needs to be reversed. The guns would be banned from conservatives and libertarians but guns would be allowed for liberals and statists. This is pretty much what we already see, The war profiteer Dianne Feinstein carried a concealed weapon when she felt endangered. She has armed body guards. The liberal celebrities who make millions from movies portraying massive amounts of killing have their armed body guards. The POTUS who drone strikes hundred of children overseas has armed body guards. These folks want to have the personal protection of guns — but they want to take that away from everyone else.
” The guns would be banned from conservatives and libertarians but guns would be allowed for liberals and statists. This is pretty much what we already see…”
Carol, are you completely delusional? I see a lot of right wing crap, but rarely do I find something as out of touch with any shred of reality as that.
Just because hitler was in power doesnt mean the Nazi’s didn’t benefit from the gun laws in 1928. The Nazi party existed since 1920…
[…] Our state’s attorney general made a tweet quoting Adolf Hitler regarding gun control, and Star Telegram reporter Bud Kennedy replied with a tweet correcting his spelling of the dictator’s name. [Credit LiberallyLean] Somewhat related: Did Hitler ban gun ownership? [TheStraightDope.com], The Myth Of Hitler’s Gun Ban […]
[…] or outright falsehoods. Guns were not summarily banned in any of these countries – including Nazi Germany, as a matter of historical note. Although firearm ownership took a distinctly different form than the Wild Wild West policies in the […]
Oh please, what a crock. Your blatant bias (of course you have one), is rearing its ugly head. Trying to claim anyone for gun rights is too stupid to know there was a Holocaust? Pathetic. Any professor worth his salt would know not to trust any of your comments or “research” after this point. I also don’t know of a single person who believes Hitler brought the Nazi’s to power by taking away the citizens’ guns, everyone knows it was propanganda. You even have the proof of their point in your essay, yet, of course, lack the proper understanding to make the connection. You say Hitler expanded guns for everyone, except the Jews, taking away their guns and making it illegal for them to own. Riddle me this, genius: Without the national registry, *how* did they know which jews had guns to take? *Exactly* the point and fear of gun owners today. A fear also proven by a pisant newspaper and its moronic editors in New York publishing the names and locations of all the gun owners they can get their hands on.
You don’t know of a single person who believes the Nazis rose to power through banning guns? Really?
Nobody (that I know of) thinks Hitler “stole” Germany’s leadership, which would require taking the citizens’ guns first. He “earned” it (through charisma and propanganda), which is why Germany is still vilified in much of today’s world. They do all believe that Hitler first took the Jews’ guns as part of subjugating and controling them, however.
“the concept of a handful of citizens armed with hunting rifles and Saturday night specials fending off an army is delusional hubris ”
Not really. It happens all the time. The Viet Cong kicked our butts in asia and the Afgans did the same for the Soviet Union in Waziristan. The small arms in civilian hands in the United States greatly outnumber any military arsenal and the bulk of our police and military are unlikely to go after their friends and families to carry out the policies of our ambitious authoritarian left. Very interesting corrections on the Hitler -gun control thingy. I suspected the “.. first day in history…” quote and googled it to find your article. Now I know that the ” Subject races” quote is real but wondered about it too. There are abundant quotes from Consitutionalists at the time of ratification that support the hedge against tyranny aspect of the Second Amendment however none of them came from Washington or Jefferson. Us Gun Addicts make ourselves look stupid when we parrot them.
I wouldnt call American provided Stinger missles that took out the Soviet helicopters exacly small arms. That is what the Afghans used against the Soviets.
Neither the Viet Cong nor the Afghans were armed with hunting rifles and Saturday night specials – they were supported by governments and supplied with military weapons. It’s also fair to point out that the Viet Cong and the Afghans were fighting on their home turf against people they saw as invaders, while a fair number of the people they were fighting against had little desire to be in unknown terrain fighting both for & against people with a vastly different culture and compounded by language differences.
I’m not sure what ‘policies of our ambitious authoritarian left’ you think would be carried out at gunpoint by either the police or the military, but do you realize that your statement directly contradicts the argument that Joe Blow needs a gun to fight off a tyrannical government? If the police and military are unlikely to go after their friends and families, who exactly is it that you envision you would need to fight off?
[…] distortions or outright falsehoods. Guns were not summarily banned in any of these countries – including Nazi Germany, as a matter of historical note. Although firearm ownership took a distinctly different form than the Wild Wild West policies in […]
I think its interesting in your argument that you mention that the Jews were not allowed to own guns. Not that owning guns would have made it better for the Jews but it sure made it much easier for the Nazis. Another interesting tongue-in-check point you made was Waco. What if the Branch Davidens did have fully automatic weapons, APCs, land mines, grenade launchers? Would that not have evened the sides at least a little? After all, Waco was an example of what the 2nd amendment is all about. I agree propaganda is more powerful than weapons. Who’s to say that the things that were said about the Branch Davidens was not propaganda used to sway public opinion in favor of the government? By the way, while the Waco incident does disgust me, I admit I don’t know anything more than what I was told.
“After all, Waco was an example of what the 2nd amendment is all about.”
No it isn’t you jackass. In the first place, the notion that the second amendment exists so people can fight back against the government is, as I have documented here, a total lie. Second, here is what Waco was an example of: a group of filthy, deranged right wing religious fanatics that would rather burn their children to death than submit to totally legal government action. The fact that miserable people like you can regard as heroes people who accomplished nothing but the death of their own children, perhaps does a lot to explain why you are so indifferent to the twenty dead children at Sandy Hook school.
“But the concept of a handful of citizens armed with hunting rifles and Saturday night specials fending off an army is delusional hubris peculiar to gun addicts. On American soil, its most glorious day in the sun has been perhaps Waco. And we all know how well that turned out.”
Speaking of arguing against your own case, you just made a good argument as to why all Americans NEED assault weapons — especially if they want to prevent a child massacre.
[…] loudmouths and the mildly entertaining gun advocates such as Alex Jones.By the way, Hitler actually expanded gun ownership rights in Germany in 1938, but why let the facts get in the way of a good scare tactic? Steve M: […]
[…] distortions or outright falsehoods. Guns were not summarily banned in any of these countries – including Nazi Germany, as a matter of historical note. Although firearm ownership took a distinctly different form than the Wild Wild West policies in […]
[…] The Gun Lobby is LYING TO US […]
Another myth is that Hitler was a vegetarian. He was no such thing.
how many people here have read Mein Kamph? for it you did, you understand what happened with “gun control”
wow. you really pulled out the crazies with this one didnt you?
I am a liberal who has wasted a tremendous amount of time on conservative websites writing comments trying to convince people to change their viewpoints. I have concluded that it would have been far wiser, and more fun, to have gone to a VFW hall to drink beers and to listen to retired veterans retell their stories. Even listening to the cockamamie stories of guys who’ve only been listening to Rush for years and years could be more useful and entertaining than devoting time to responding to the hard shelled nuts of the Right whose comments are in abundance on the internet.
That said, I appreciate the time and effort P.O.P. put into his comments throughout this thread. Thank you.
Actually no evidence that Hitler was vegetarian. Any claim that he was was just propaganda. Plenty of evidence that he ate meat. See scopes.com.
My favorite part is where you insinuate the people who own guns, or the “gun culture” as you seem so excited to call them also tend to deny the Holocaust happened. I mean, not all, but you never know with them evil gun nuts, anyone you talk to who has a gun probably doesn’t believe the Holocaust happened either….
The ONLY purpose for that little jibe is to create a false association and discredit a group. It is a perfect example of an “association fallacy”.
If you are going to make an argument, fine. But make a good argument.
I’ve known quite a few gun addicts, and quite a few of them were Holocaust deniers. I’m sorry to say I didn’t track the exact percentage. How good an “argument” does it need to be to meet your approval?
Patrick = Troll:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll
Not quite true, as one of my old friends – who is not Jewish – will attest. He grew up during the Nazi regime and WWII. His father hid his old hunting rifle in a hollow stump deep in the woods because weapons were banned generally, except for police and a few trusted government officials – who had to be members of the Nazi party, or else you were not considered to be a “good German”. This is the truth that libs would deny. We know it, but they use a half-truth for their agenda.
The truth is that the Nazi gun law made it easier than ever for Germans to own guns.
So let me get this straight…Hitler didn’t ban ALL guns, only the guns owned by the people he hated and wanted to exterminate? Seems to me that the author is making a distinction without a difference. The simple fact of the matter is that the first order of business of every genocidal regime of the 20th century has been to disarm its victims. But of course, we know that could NEVER happen in today’s modern world, where we are led by such enlightened and progressive minds!
With respect to the conversations about whether or not being armed would have prevented the Holocaust, let me leap ahead. After the war, when the Jewish people declared “never again,” they built a country which has armed itself to the teeth. In spite of being a tiny minority amongst their Jew-hating neighbors in the mid-East, they are not being dragged into ovens these days. Instead of looking at history as one static moment in time (WWII); look at the consequences of the history and how it has changed, molded or created new history. This is not to say that the dialogue about guns is not a good and necessary thing at this time, with regard to recent massacre-type gun violence. Both sides have some valid arguments. However, it should also be recognized that one of, if not the, worst school killing sprees was accomplished with a bomb, not guns. The answers to violence (gun and other) are many and nuanced and will probably never be 100% fool proof. Screaming about your point of view (regardless of which side you are on) is sort of counter-intuitive isn’t it? And like so many other well intentioned ideas, one must always be aware of the law of unintended consequences within ones own position as well.
[…] Via:The Myth Of Hitler’s Gun Ban « The Propaganda Professor [automated] […]
P.O.P,
I don’t disagree with your viewpoints but do have a question. Don’t you think the colonists did a pretty good job of defeating a much better equipped army and armada with simple muskets and a few farmers, shopkeepers and the like? Over simplifying I know, but easily a much shorter question this way.
They eventually were victorious of course. Not just with farmers and shopkeepers but with trained soldiers — aided by the French. By the time the war was over, Revolutionary troops had become more effective than the ragtag ensemble they seemed to be at the outset.
“But the concept of a handful of citizens armed with hunting rifles and Saturday night specials fending off an army is delusional hubris peculiar to gun addicts.”
You might want to research some history on the Jewish resistance and some of the issues they caused.
Equating the holocaust number to “a handful of citizens” says more about you than those you think you are denigrating.
I’m quite familiar with the Jewsih resistance activities, and I’m also quite familiar with how most of them failed to achieve the desired result. In virtually every case, it was indeed a handful of citizens, which I am in no way equating to the entire “holocaust number”. If you think stating such facts is denigrating anyone, then it says more about you than about the writer you are denigrating by accusing me of denigrating.
Patrick, You are THE BIGGEST LOSER AND THE WEAKEST LINK…give me back my minutes.
Patrick: YOU ARE THE BIGGEST LOSER & YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK…now I want the minutes of life you stole from me from having read your PROPAGANDA!!!!
I thought you might find these articles useful:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SchwoererChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/BellesilesChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/RakoveChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/UvillerAndMerkelChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HeymanChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/DorfChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FinkelmanChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm
Thanks. I think a great many people might benefit from reading these if they would bother to do so.
You’re welcome. My favorite is the Finkelman article, second from the bottom, about the historical context surrounding militias. Especially revealing is the revelation that Antifederalists wanted a “2nd Am” that specifically stated a right of individual ownership for self-protection, and that Madison and the First Congress rejected such wording.
I’m planning a sequel to my previous post on the Second Amendment, which really didn’t cover enough bases. This just might come in handy.
I was going to bother reading your legal paper links on gun control, until I saw that *every* single one came from Chicago legal offices. You know, that city that not only has among the highest gun crimes, but such draconian gun laws that the Supreme Court came in and told them they are violating the Constitution. Its like reading papers from the Chinese government talking about how communism is the best government.
More like the ownership of the Chicago Cubs advising on how to assemble a winning baseball dynasty
If people are looking for excuses not to be enlightened, Daniel Mey’s implication that the linked papers are government sponsored is as good as any I suppose. But it’s based on some serious misconceptions.
To begin with a somewhat trivial point, the website that posts these papers is The Second Amendment Foundation, a distinctly pro-gun organization.
Secondly, these papers were neither written by nor sponsored by the government of the city of Chicago. It would seem Mey only looked at the links and not the articles themselves, then jumped to conclusions.
Rather, the papers had been submitted to The Symposium on the Second Amendment hosted by the Chicago-Kent College of Law of the Illinois Institute of Technology. They were then published in the Vol. 76 No. 1 2000 issue of The Chicago-Kent Law Review.
So rather than being government propaganda as Mey suggests, they are in fact scholarly essays written by historians filled with documented evidence from primary sources written by the Founding Fathers themselves.
To further illustrate this point, only one of the authors of the above linked articles is from Chicago himself. Of the rest:
1 is from Washington, DC (George Washington University)
1 is from Georgia (Emory University)
1 is from California (Stanford University)
2 are from New York City (Columbia University)
1 is from New York State (SUNY)
1 is from Oklahoma (University of Tulsa)
Despite this, however, I doubt anyone will cease looking for excuses to avoid reading these articles.
Here, Biochemborg, are the additional links you posted on a different page. I think they belong here instead. (I think I’ll also put them, or at least some of them, on my future post about the Second Amendment.)
Click to access Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf
Click to access evaluatinggunpolicy.pdf
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=fss_papers
http://www.guncite.com/cummingsjama.html
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199208133270705
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm
No, I did not read them after I saw they came from Chicago, there was no point–just as I’m sure you would find no point in legal papers written in Texas (or on Fox News) supporting the 2nd Amendment. Also, all the professors you mentioned (except maybe Tulsa, I don’t know that one) are “liberal” colleges, hardly an unbiased demographic, despite your assertions. Just because the government didn’t commission the symposium doesn’t mean it wasn’t attended by all the same elites, either.
I would like to thank Mr. Mey for confirming both my suspicion and my prediction that he and others would devise excuses for not reading these scholarly papers backed by documented historical facts from primary sources written by the Founding Fathers.
However, I think he may be wasting his time posting to this blog; rather, he should be on the stage putting his talents to more lucrative uses. His paranormal ability to determine the worth or truth of a written document without actually reading it, as well as his equally extrasensory power of being able to remotely determine people’s motives and purposes without actually knowing anything about them, except perhaps their university affiliation and/or geographical location, suggests he could make a very comfortable living as a professional “psychic”.
I must confess, however, to being surprised that anyone would seriously argue that the city or state one resides in, or the university one teaches at, is a viable and precise determinant of the truth and accuracy of his or her historical research. Many scholars who argue for an individualist interpretation of the 2nd Am teach at so-called “liberal” universities, or live in New York or California rather than Texas, or receive their funding from state or national grant programs instead of Fox News or the NRA. I know, because I’ve read their articles (thereby confounding Mr. Mey’s certainty that I would consider doing so pointless; maybe he wouldn’t do so well on the stage after all). Does Mr. Mey consider them to be “elites”?
My paranormal sense tells me he does not. So I guess the only “elites” are those who argue against his ideology.
I was hoping I could get some sources for the information? I believe you but I like to be able to say “SEE?!” at people when they doubt things.
Here’s an excellent paper on the subject:http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf
It also cites a number of other sources.
Here’s a corroboration from GunCite, which is a PRO-GUN website: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
It cites two lengthier sources: The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich and Lethal Laws.
On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.
On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.
Reblogged this on iheariseeilearn.
“… the concept of a handful of citizens armed with hunting rifles and Saturday night specials fending off an army is delusional hubris …”
With this statement, the author unwittingly makes the fundamental argument AGAINST restrictions on military-style defensive weapons. Of COURSE one can’t use plinking guns to repel an army. Free citizens, if they are to remain free and not become subjects, have a right to the same arms as the military. This is the primary purpose of the Second Amendment, and the reason why the Amendment does not specify things like caliber or clip size.
No, actually. That only makes sense if you accept that a fundamental purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow armed rebellion against the government, which is preposterous if you think about it carefully. Even if that WAS the purpose way back when the most advanced military weaponry was a muzzle-loading cannon, it wasn’t a sensible reason for the 2nd Amendment even then. THERE IS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO OVERTHROW A LAWFUL GOVERNMENT, and there is no need for a law permitting one to overthrow an unlawful one.
But today, the argument that citizens should be able to to match the firepower of the military is even more preposterous. Even if we did nominally permit all forms of armaments, the sheer cost of advanced military hardware would absolutely prevent individual citizens from being able to come anywhere near competing with the military might of the state, except perhaps for fantastically wealthy corporations, and do we REALLY want corporate armies poised to overthrow the state? Seriously? Has it come to that?
The author shows simply that the rationale offered for the 2nd Amendment, in allowing private citizens sufficient weaponry to resist the government, is nonsense, because the kinds of weapons that private citizens will ever be able to obtain and wield effectively as individuals will never ever ever be able to pose a threat to Leviathan. Those gun nuts (and I use the term reservedly) insisting that they be allowed to keep their assault rifles in order to resist government tyranny are delusional because their weapons are utterly useless against the state.
Abandon this silly barbaric Maoist concept that political power grows from the barrel of a gun. Military power is not a new invention, and it is not the secret to America’s freedom (and the freedom of other modern democracies). The secret is the Rule of Law, the idea that we are a nation of laws not men, and that disputes are resolved by reason and principle, not force of arms. That force of arms itself must be made subservient to law, and not its master.
KBI says: “Free citizens, if they are to remain free and not become subjects, have a right to the same arms as the military. This is the primary purpose of the Second Amendment, and the reason why the Amendment does not specify things like caliber or clip size.”
Are you a total lunatic, KBI? Your statement would allow citizens to own hydrogen bombs. Is that okay with you? Then maybe instead of 26 dead people in Newtown, we could have had a couple of million killed. And the second amendment does not specify things like clip size because at the time it was written, all guns were single shot, with powder and ball being loaded separately- no one had ever even thought of a multi-round magazine, let alone made one.
People like you need to grow up and get it together before pushing your idiocy on other people.
A German:
Immediately after the “takeover” of the Nazis in 1933, the legislation on weapons of the Weimar Republic was used to disarm Jews, Communists, Socialists, Gipsies, Homosexuals and other persons who were to be considered not trustworthy. So the chief of police in Wroclaw decreed on 21 April 1933, that these persons have their gun licenses immediately have to hand over to the police authorities.
The Arms Act was also used for house searches and raids. The victims were alleged to have stored large quantities of weapons and ammunition. One prominent victim is Albert Einstein, whose summer home in Caputh was searched in spring of 1933.
In large-scale raids in April 1933 in Berlin and other cities, along with many weapons dissident writings were found.
At this time Wilhelm Frick, the minister of the interior wrote to Hermann Goering that the the right time for a revision of the entire weapons law is only given if the penetration of the German people with the Nazi ideology has progressed to the point that armed clashes with dissident elements to a significant degree are not to be expected. ”
After five years of oppression and eradication of dissidents the time was ripe, Hitler signed the new gun law. With the firearms legislation 1938 laws have been extensively regulated by the Nazis has been. This Arms Act, benefited the officials of the NSDAP and its affiliated organizations and the enemies of the state were denied to possess arms. With this gun laws no more firearms license for carrying a weapon was needed for certain groups within the Nazi party.
The assassination of a prominent Nazi (Ernst vom Rath by a Jew on November 1938 was used by the Nazi regime as a pretext for the November pogrom (Reichskristallnacht). This was done witout any risk because at this time the Jews had been completely disarmed.
“Als erste zivilisierte Nation haben wir ein Waffenregistrierungsgesetz. Unsere Straßen werden dadurch sicherer werden; unsere Polizei wird effizienter und die Welt wird unserem Beispiel in die Zukunft folgen!”
(Adolf Hitler, Reichsparteitag am 15. 09.1935)
Sources:
Stephen P. Halbrook: Das Nazi-Waffengesetz und die Entwaffnung der deutschen Juden. In: Allgemeine Schweizerische Militärzeitschrift, Nr. 12, Dezember 2001
Click to access entwaffnung.pdf
Joachim Steindorf: Kurzkommentar zum Waffenrecht, Verlag C.H. Beck 1999.
Wolf Gruner: Die Verfolgung und Ermordung der europäischen Juden durch das nationalsozialistische Deutschland 1933–1945, Band 2: Deutsches Reich 1938 – August 1939. München 2009
NO one said htiler didint take the guns from the Jews. Just that he didnt take them from the German population.
How would any of you like your freedom of speech taken away? The out right lies and disinformation in this whole post is damaging. Not in a way like a gun killing someone but damaging. Dont get information from a history book, or the news, or the internet, they are good refrences but not 100% true, if you think they are then this post is not for you because you are already a lost sheep. The gun ban talk boils down to this, if you dont want rights like freedom of speech, or many others taken away then dont open the door by letting the government take other rights like guns. Ronald Regan was shot by a mentally unstable person yet he was a defender of the second amendment. Crazy people do crazy things, its going to happen wether they have guns or not. John Gasey, Green river killer, Timothy Mcvey, Ted bundy, and so on and so on, none of which had guns. Some people like to bring up George Zimmerman as a “good person” that killed becouse of a gun, well guess what, he wasnt diagnosed but there is strong evidence of paranoia, so even undiagnosed mental problems can lead to this type of incident. That should not be a basis for taking or banning guns from sane and responsible people. I do not own an assault riffle but I do have guns and have been hunting since I was a small child and I was taught to handle them and respect them. Which brings us to the lack of respect for others and life that whole generations seem to have now, especially in this country. P.O P. I respect your opinion on guns but it is exactly that an opinion, not facts. You should also respect others opinions even if they differ from yours!!
I’m not sure what leads you to think that my comments are merely opinion, or that I don’t respect what other people have to say, but in any case thanks for your two cents’ worth.
“Dont get information from a history book, or the news, or the internet, they are good refrences but not 100% true, if you think they are then this post is not for you because you are already a lost sheep.”
Ha. Where are we supposed to get information from? Divine inspiration? Listening to lunatics like you? Going into a trance and being transported to ancient times when the events took place?
As a non American I’ve read about as much as I can stomach of this, mostly with a sense of increasing awe. Is this the country that once led the world in technology, spawned many of the world’s greatest artists, performers, cineastes, composers et al?
The patent lack of education in many of these replies is staggering. Has blind acceptance of snake oil selling preachers now usurped the quest for learning?
A European , Asian or African child of ten would collapse in hysterical laughter at 90% of the verbiage used here. For the simple reason that you are mostly too stupid to understand how under informed you really are.
P.O.P., you are quickly becoming somebody I look up to. I wish I could speak these things as eloquently as you.
Thanks, appreciate it.
All these brilliant remarks and there not one thing you can do about any of it, nothing!
“But the concept of a handful of citizens armed with hunting rifles and Saturday night specials fending off an army is delusional hubris peculiar to gun addicts.”
Exactly, which is why we need to be allowed to arm ourselves with assault rifles. You unwittingly make the gun rights case.
Not really. There will always be someone with bigger and more toys. You want tanks to go with that? Nuclear weapons?
The idea is for the individuals to be able to protect themselves and narrow the gap; when an armed agent or two or four of government comes to take you or your family away or off you on the spot, nuclear weapons cannot save you. Assault weapons can. I’ll defer discussing whether an individual should be able to own a tank until I’ve thought about it more-though it doesn’t seem all that unreasonable quite frankly-why limit the control of tanks to government employees and exclude qualified civilians? Deciding who is armed based merely on where there paycheck comes strikes me as irrational, and contrary to the human experience; democide has killed a lot more people than civilian maniacs have.
It’s not a matter of deciding who is armed. It’s a matter of recognizing that your rationale for being armed is totally unrealistic.
Hitler and the Nazis apparently thought it was realistic that Jews would be able to substantially defend themselves and inflict casualties on the Nazis; if the Nazis thought it wasn’t realistic, they wouldn’t have taken the guns away.
One thing I’ve noticed about controllers is that they tend to be fixated on the idea that the individual right to bear arms and defend oneself is the same thing as civilian insurrection. They are not. I by no means posit that the Jews would have defeated the Nazis in some sort of collective armed action, though I of course can’t rule out that several million armed individuals could make a substantial difference as we recently saw in Libya. That, however, is a different question than whether weapons in the hands of civilians can help them save themselves and get to safety. I should also note its also a different question than deterrence.
DirkJohanson says:
January 18, 2013 at 2:51 pm
The idea is for the individuals to be able to protect themselves and narrow the gap; when an armed agent or two or four of government comes to take you or your family away or off you on the spot, nuclear weapons cannot save you. Assault weapons can.
–Really? Ever watch Cops? You think one or 2 armed agents are just going to “come” as though you’d invited them for tea? What is a rifle or shotgun going to do except get you killed? How much warning were you planning on having, anyway? We have more than simply squads of highly trained, armored men with superior firepower to come get you. We have flying robot assassins. We have battlefield robots. If the army came for you, it won’t be like you have any inkling until a flash-bang grenade bursts in your living room. They have snipers. But…
The closest we’ve ever, EVER come to the government making any kind of statement that they would engage in “coming for us” was under Bush, when he recalled the 1st Div to the States for “crowd control.” The closest we have ever, EVER, come to “gun grabbing” has been under Republican leadership. Reagan signed the very first “assault weapons” ban. HCI was formed by Sarah Brady and is still headed up by Republicans. The Brady Bill is a Republican creature.
The most you can hope for is to conduct some kind of stand off operation to buy your family time to get out. That’s if you have warning, an escape plan, a solid understanding of SWAT or infantry tactics, and most importantly, if you are never standing down yourself. But you are welcome to dress up like a toy soldier, carry a weird manifestation of your manhood in your own home, and stand a 24-hour sentry for things that will never happen. Good luck with the wife and kids with that. We have a Constitution for a reason: to preserve domestic tranquility.
Ah, cyprian66 – here you go, another liberal who can’t conceive of a scenario other than the entire United States army coming for one guy and his family.
When the Nazis rounded up the Jews, typically they were told by letter to assemble at the train station. I recently read a lengthy historical account of the attempted, and largely unsuccessful, rounding-up in Vichy France, which turned out to be quite an ordeal because for the most part, the French would have none of it.
Me thinks you need to watch a little less TV. You also apparently are unfamiliar with laws in the south which prohibited African Americans from owning guns, with the experience of First Peoples, and with Waco.
BTW, I don’t own a gun, and my use of a gun in my entire life has consistent of about an hour on a firing range – I don’t see an immediate need. But keep mocking those that disagree with you – by doing so, you are, like the author of the article, doing a better job making the case for individual ownership of effective weaponry than I ever could.
what a laundry list of erroneous assumptions. You put yourself up for mockery by all of these assumbtions about me, wihout refuting anything I have said. I did not state that “the entire US Army” would come after you. I did state a counter to your statement that it would be a handful of govenernment agents. You seem to be completely, completely unaware of how warrants are served. Dog the Bounty Hunter makes more forceful entries than the ones you seem to be fantasizing about.
Having said that: I am familiar with TV. That doesn’t make me a chronic TV watcher. My knowledge of shows is very limited. I don’t own a TV. I spend my time reading. Nothing I have said indicates a lack of my awareness of Waco, or of the gun control act of 1969, etc. I study these things not solely bec I get in these debates, but also simply bec I “assign homework” to myself in the form of the things I like to read, which are philosphy and history. I have shown no ignorance of the things you have accused me of being ignorant of, and I don’t do the things that you seem to judge that I do based on my one rather un-insightful post which was simply addressing one very specific thing. But you go right on ahead and continue to make your strawman statements about me which only show your inability to read between the lines or extract information which is freely available to you in my posts and in my blog. You have no idea of my experience or what I believe, and you still seem to be clinging to a fantasy about fending off the government, which Tom address in much more insightful terms than I have. I see that you offer him only simplistic, strawman arguments to him as well.
Be honest about what you’re advocating, DirkJohanson. You aren’t simply suggesting that individuals should be allowed to arm themselves (which I don’t have a serious problem with subject to sensible licensing, registration and insurance like we have with automobiles, for example.) You are suggesting that there should be no lawful government at all. You are saying that all power is and should remain force of arms, and rejecting the single most important principle that underlies the entire American experiment: Rule of Law, that disputes should be resolved by principled discourse and reason, and that force should only be available to the state, and even then subject to very strict limits of law.
You are rejecting the very notion of the state, which is defined by scholars variously but almost always includes a legal monopoly on the use of force. When you suggest that individuals should have the capacity to forcibly repel lawful attempts to repel them, you are denying that there can even exist a lawful arrest; there is only a successful exercise of military force and an unsuccessful exercise. The state is entitled to arrest you if they send enough soldiers to take you out, and not if they don’t. But this same rule applies to anyone else; anyone well-armed enough to take you out, is entitled to do so regardless of moral or legal justification.
There are only two games to choose from here. Rule of Law, and Rule of Arms. Rule of Arms includes both anarchy and despotism, because invariably the best equipped and best organized faction ends up imposing its will on everyone else. You can see the world through that Maoist lens if you wish, but you essentially surrender any moral claim when you do, because you reject any relevance of moral or legal force when you embrace Might Makes Right. You will never be mighty enough to stop the State from imposing its will upon you, but under Rule of Law, that might is restrained.
I know people who are gun enthusiasts who are constantly denouncing the police — any police — as consistently evil, incompetent and corrupt, and urging resistance and noncompliance with police action as a matter of principle. I find that attitude, especially when espoused by gun lovers, much scarier than the admitted occasional abuses that some police personnel are guilty of.
“I know people who are gun enthusiasts who are constantly denouncing the police — any police — as consistently evil, incompetent and corrupt…”
If that is true (and all too often it is,) then it is our responsibility as citizens to reform them, and weed out those who are incorrigible, so they can perform their very necessary function, not to kill them.
Not really, Tom. I’ve written nothing, and advocate nothing, of the sort. You are stunningly dishonest to even imply that out of nothing. I’m one of the most ardent supporters of the language of the constitution I know.
What I am saying is that ultimately, when a government goes haywire and becomes tyrannical, the ultimate power is the power of the gun. Because no amount of naivete by those that worship at the altar of big government negates the fact that it is.
You write about my words, “When you suggest that individuals should have the capacity to forcibly repel lawful attempts to repel them” Of course, I didn’t write that, so your comment, which is essentially an elaboration of that baseless assertion, is thoroughly off-base.
That having been said, it is of course possible for even lawful exercises of government power to be so over the top that they merit armed resistance, though I personally do not see how that is possible under our constitution as it reads and exists today.
Tom, very well put.
Speaking of scary, are you familiar with L. Neil Smith?
If not, here are some links to get acquainted:
http://www.lneilsmith.org/
http://www.lneilsmith.org/lns_speeches.html
http://down-with-power.com/lever_action/07_leveract.html
http://down-with-power.com/
http://www.ncc-1776.org/
Wow
Yes, Mr. Smith is certainly … interesting. His first novel, written in the late 70’s, predicted that sometime soon (for that time) the US would be taken over by an ecofascist green party. To my knowledge he’s never admitted his mistake, but he continues to write pessimistic essays predicting the imminent takeover of the US by “collectivist” forces both domestic and foreign. Here’s his vision of that apocalyptic scenario:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2011/tle609-20110306-02.html
He claims to be a libertarian, which he defines very narrowly:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html
but he skirts the edge of calling for armed insurrection so closely that one almost cringes in expectation that he will one day inadvertently fall off.
If I have misrepresented your views, Dirk, I apologize, but I can see no other way to parse what you wrote. You said, “The idea is for the individuals to be able to protect themselves and narrow the gap; when an armed agent or two or four of government comes to take you or your family away or off you on the spot, nuclear weapons cannot save you. Assault weapons can.”
How else can a reasonable person read that but as advocating a right for people to resist the government with force? When the armed government agents come to the door, the lawful response is to go peacefully, not to shoot them. Yes, I am well aware that the government ought not to be trusted; that’s why we have law, and checks and balances, and procedure. And yes, I know that these measures can fail and governments can (and often do) do unjust and unlawful things.
I do not worship at the altar of big government, nor do I put my trust in the idol of the gun. Without Law, they are ultimately the same thing, and neither deserve nor need our faith. But Law does. Law works only if we all collectively agree to embrace its principles and abide by its requirements, and that requires us to invest our faith in it. (Here I mean faith, and NOT belief; I may well believe the government is corrupt, but to act in good faith I must act AS IF it is lawful regardless of my doubts.) We can never have law if we don’t make that leap of faith, and cede our right to use violence.
Tom,
At a certain level of tyranny, individuals may have to turn to the use of force against governmental agents to save their lives and such and I fully back their right to do so and don’t think I’ve claimed otherwise. What I objected to about your post was something different.
I am not advocating that individuals use force against any governmental agent that oversteps his or her bounds in some minor way on isolated occasions and/or when there are real procedures in place for reversal of the improper act and possible redress, merely when a government goes haywire. Unfortunately, that has happened a lot. Something like 270 million people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century, far more than have been killed in the recent spat of horrific mass murders. It seems to me that too many people feel like “it can’t happen here.” I hooe those people are right – maybe it never will – but my preference is better safe than sorry. A lot of people never thought about New York City getting hit with a major hurricane. S*&t happens.
Of course. At a certain level of tyranny, all bets are off, and principles of law no longer apply. You do what you have to to survive in that case, and hopefully throw out the regime. But “better safe than sorry” is a delusion; privately owned guns are no more protection against a tyrannical government than tightly-wound blanket is against a real monster in the closet, if such a creature were to actually exist. There just IS no safety in such a scenario; you fight with what you have available, and try to get better resources by any means you can, whether that be the hunting rifle in the attic or ambushing a supply convoy.
As I have said before, I am not arguing for total bans, because there are legitimate reasons to own firearms. But having them FOR USE AGAINST THE STATE is by definition an illegitimate purpose. There is not and can never be a legal right to take up arms against the state. There may be a PRACTICAL necessity, but if it ever comes to that, law has already long ceased to be a consideration. The state has no obligation to facilitate its own overthrow by permitting weapons for that purpose, and it undermines the whole reason to have a constitution to enshrine a right of violent resistance to it. A right to bear arms? Sure, no problem. But a right to bear arms agains the state? This is a legal and logical oxymoron.
Tom, By writing “The state has no obligation to facilitate its own overthrow ” you evidence a very static viewpoint of what “the state” is. The Framers believed, I believe wisely, that as admirable for the times as what they founded was, that it could also change for the worse. When they enacted the Second Amendment, they did so as representatives of the people, not the institution of government. They weren’t seeking to preserve that institution even if it devolved into something so disconnected from what they intended that it was merely nominally what they had founded.
I’m not the biggest fan of legislative history as a guide to its meaning, and can’t rule out that there were other viewpoints among the framers at the time, but certainly many statements of the founders evidence that this was there intent. Quoting from wikipedia:
Noah Webster::
Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[81][8
George Mason: “to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
Patrick Henry:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[85]
James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed….”[81][86]
It should also be born in mind that every other amendment in the Bill of Rights is patently protective of individual rights against the state.
“James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed….”
Wrong. As usual, a grossly out of context excerpt. Here it is in a little more context:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned”
Madison states clearly that he does not believe that it was the lack of arms that prevented Europeans from languishing under monarchies. This is stated only a couple of sentences after the remark quoted above, but it has been ignored.
At the beginning of this Federalist paper Madison makes the following remarks:
“The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem…to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. ”
Again affirming that Madison here, as others in other Federalist Papers, rejects the notion of the militia as a weapon against the Federal government. I need hardly remark that the entire program of American Conservatism is based on a pack of lies and distortions. It won’t surprise anyone that this is just one more little addition to that record.
I’m sorry, Green Eagle, but reading your comment, it appears quite clear to me that you are saying one thing and James Madison is saying another.
In the first paragraph, he is advocating that, in addition to private arms, that local governments have their own military forces. He closes the paragraph stating that were it the case that the people of Europe had both sets of force at their disposal (i.e., both private arms and local government arms) that they could shake the central government’s tyranny. In the United States, as I’m sure you know, the central government is the federal government.
His second paragraph merely makes the point that just because local government and the central government serve as checks and balances to each other, that does not make them enemies or rivals. Of course, as per his first paragraph, it certainly was apparent to him that they could theoretically end up being enemies or rivals, and it was patently his hope that by empowering local government, and that adding empowered local government to an already-empowered individual populace would serve as a deterrent to the exercise of the use federal power against the people.
Sorry, can’t be bothered to respond to your quibbling.
Mr. Cantine:
You might want to read these articles:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FinkelmanChicago.htm
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm
They address many of the points Mr. Johanson has, particularly the “right of revolution” and the use of quotes to support an individualist interpretation. In the second link, the author says this in one of his footnotes:
36. Much of this line of analysis relies on supporting quotes accidentally or willfully pulled out of context that, when examined in context, support the Court’s view. To pick an example, Stephen P. Halbrook quotes Patrick Henry’s words during the Virginia Ratifying Convention as saying, “The great object is, that every man be armed … . Every one who is able may have a gun.” Stephen P. Halbrook, To Keep and Bear Their Private Arms: The Adoption of the Second Amendment, 1787-1791, 10 N. Ky. L. Rev. 24, 25 (1982). This quote would seem to support the view that at least some early leaders advocated general popular armament aside from militia purposes. Yet here is the full quote from the original debates:
May we not discipline and arm them [the states], as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case.
3 Jonathan Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 386 (1836) (emphasis added). It is perfectly obvious that Henry’s comments are in the context of a discussion of the militia and the power balance between the states and Congress. Numerous other such examples as this can be found; space limits constrain the presentation of additional illustrations. Garry Wills’s conclusion about this literature is less charitable. Speaking about the individualist writers, he says that “it is the quality of their arguments that makes them hard to take seriously.” Garry Wills, Why We Have No Right to Keep and Bear Arms, N.Y. Rev. Books, Sept. 21, 1995, at 62.
=====
Though many Founding Fathers were Antifederalists who believed in an individual right to gun ownership, the vast majority of such quotes are actually referring to militias, not an armed citizenry.
It may be worth referring to the actual text of the 2nd Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Note what a well-regulated militia is necessary to: the SECURITY of a free state. It takes a rather strenuous and contrived reading to interpret that as “the overthrow of a tyrannical state”. They had already fought to overthrow a tyrannical state; the purpose of a constitution was to establish a state they would not need to overthrow. And if they DID ever come to need to overthrow it, they wouldn’t need a constitutional right to do so.
First of all, the framers did not want to be overthrowing a state. The goal was a structure of checks and balances so it would never be necessary. You state that they wouldn’t need a constitutional amendment to overthrow a tyrannical government should it ever occur, but in fact, the Second Amendment allows people to be armed so that if the day should come, they are able to do so since they are already armed and are not defenseless lambs waiting to be culled.
As far as your assertion that gun ownership was limited to governmental militias, the majority of the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you. Reading from the Heller decision:
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keepand bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585,
p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The CommonplaceSecond Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821
…
The discussion of this clause continues on for several pages in the decision and concludes that the right to bear arms is an individual right, not limited to members of governmental militias.
“The discussion of this clause continues on for several pages in the decision and concludes that the right to bear arms is an individual right, not limited to members of governmental militias.”
Funny, you are willing to rely on the right wing “scholar” Volokh, rather than the clear statements to the contrary in the Federalist Papers, written by the authors of the second amendment.
We discussed two statements from the Federalist Papers yesterday which you presented; with all due respect, you are reading them wrong. If you believe there is another, please present it.
It also bears mentioning to construe the10th amendment with the second, since they were both adopted at the same time.
the 10th states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, OR to the people.”
Clearly, “the States” and “the people” were two different things to the Framers. Thus, when the 2nd amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” it is unreasonable to assume that the word “state” and “people” be used interchangeably. Not only should one presume that different words mean different things within a single sentence, but the tenth amendment makes that distinction even clearer.
It is also worth noting that the Constitution defines insurrection as treason and grants Congress the power to suppress it using the militias. This was before the 2nd Am was even written, much less ratified.
I never said anything about in whom the right to bear arms was vested. While there can be some ambiguity about what that denotes (criminal cases are, in some states at least, styled “The People v. John Doe”), I’m not taking issue with an individual right to be armed. We’re talking about the reasons why such a right should be enshrined.
I need to make clear here that the original intent is not, to my mind, an exhaustive answer to the question, though it deserves some weight. Nor is the position of SCOTUS the answer for now until the end of time, although it is of course the law of the land until it is reversed or a constitutional amendment is passed. (Virtually no one today believes the Dred Scott decision was correct, after all.) Court decisions, even legally correct ones, are part of an ongoing dialogue, and the legislative branch may choose to change the law as circumstances change.
So even if the framers actually intended for the 2nd Amendment to preserve the people’s ability to overthrow the government if it became too corrupt, we are within our rights to review that justification and reject it if it turns out to be inappropriate to our modern circumstances. Personally, I don’t think we need to go that far; giving the framers credit for some wisdom, we should assume they would have understood that no constitution should be written so as to sacrifice the welfare and stability of the regime it contemplates for the ability of people to overthrow some other future tyranny that might arise after the constitution itself has ceased to have meaning. You write a constitution for the benefit of the people who will live under it, not for the regime that follows after it has failed. They were not Hari Seldon.
Tom, I’m pretty sure I agree with everything in the first two paragraphs of your previous comment, and while there were almost certainly a variety of opinions at the time as there usually are, what the framers memorialized was not the delusion that they had performed a perfect union, but merely a “more perfect union” as the preamble to the Constitution states.
Thomas Jefferson is notably on record as assuming there would be future insurrections. See http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_liberty…%28Quotation%29
“…We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure… – Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787[2]
Did you somehow forget the biggest insurrection in our History with over 500k casualties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1862
Did you ever wonder why they all were called by the state they were from instead of the way the Army is today with soldiers mixed from all different states? It was because they were Militias raised from the populations of their respective states. How could you miss that?
ItS impertinent; there’s always been an individual right to bear arms
It wasnt just a right, it was a requirement for every male age 18 to 45 and they were required to provide their own firearm, bullets, powder and flints Etc. as any of them could be called up into the militia at any time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
Here is an alternative view of the meaning of “The Tree of Liberty” quote, suggesting that TJ’s beliefs were far more nuanced than discussed herein, and that they evolved over time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/thomas-jefferson-and-the_b_273800.html
The full text of the letter:
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/blood.htm
A scholarly article on what TJ wrote and said about arms, militias, and insurrection in their historical contexts:
Click to access 1_2_250-291.pdf
Propaganda Professor: This is an excellent blog entry. I feel the need, however, give you an editorial note that will help make it more accurate: “Nazi” is not an acronym and should not be written in all-caps. Neither in German nor English is anything but the first letter capitalized.
Yes, you’re right. Nazi is what I call (and I believe I coined this term) a quasi-acronym. Which is to say it’s an abbreviation that represents more than one word. So my using all caps is a stylistic quirk of mine to indicate that, though I’ve decided to stop doing it because it causes confusion. Technically, if it were an acronym, I’d probably put periods after the letters.
Incidentally, many people (including yours truly) have been known to refer to Nazi as an acronym even when they know it’s not — see, for example, Wikipedia. It’s usually more a case of broadening the application of the word than of not understanding its strict meaning.
We were not “designed” to be strict vegetarians. How do I know this? Because we have a brain that can question and explore, figure out how to kill and cook, and in other respects transcend limitations of our anatomy. It’s like saying we should all do it missionary style because we have 2 feet instead of 4, or that we should worship rocks because we can’t touch the moon.
I guess a lot of pro-gun/conservative folks presume to know something about each other, when they obviously don’t…I am pro-2nd ammendment, I personally think that everyone should open carry (provided training, and they aren’t a criminal, etc, etc), I served my country in multiple conflicts on the front lines and am a bronze star and multiple ARCOM’s w/valor device recipient, and continue to serve today. I am an atheist, I have stared death in the face many times over and had no need to look to god (there are no atheists in fox-holes, my ass), or felt that he was in any way helping me. But I support everyone else’s freedom of religion, I don’t care if you post a statue of the ten commandments (but don’t get butt hurt when someone wants to put up a big ass Buddha statue), I don’t care if your kids pray in school (my kids pray in school too of their own choice, because I want them to make their own decision about where they believe or not). The article above is posted filled with facts, for anyone that has actually studied historical fact (and not philosophic discussion on what hitler “intended”, since actions and/or recorded words are the only thing that are measurable in time and space). The below are the “outrageous” gun restrictions that have been put in place so far (literally nothing new preventing you from doing anything you couldn’t legally do before…these are just common sense damn good idea’s)
“The announcement is over, and Obama is signing the 23 executive actions. These actions are in addition to laws that Obama wants Congress to pass. Here, according to the White House, are the 23 executive actions that he and his administration will do:
1. “Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.”
2. “Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.”
3. “Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.”
4. “Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”
5. “Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.”
6. “Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.”
7. “Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.”
8. “Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).”
9. “Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.”
10. “Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.”
11. “Nominate an ATF director.”
12. “Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.”
13. “Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.”
14. “Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”
15. “Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.”
16. “Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”
17. “Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.”
18. “Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.”
19. “Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.”
20. “Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.”
21. “Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.””
22. “Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.”
23. “Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.”
“Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”
Does this include Mexican Drug cartels who killed over 300 Mexican nationals with guns given to them under the direction of Eric Holder? Over 1400 of those guns were never recovered, two were found at the location of the murder of a US Border Patrol agent, and now he’s sitting on an Executive Committee to find ways to “take peoples Second Amendment rights away”?
Eric Holder and Obama have always been against the Second Amendment, because they disagree with private gun ownership. I know Obama says he “supports the Second Amendment,” but his record as Senator of Illinois completely contradicts this, as does his intention to “find ways to restrict gun ownership.” Eric Holder was asked by Obama in 2011 to study ways to end gun ownership in this country, before any of these mass shootings. Holder launched a campaign years ago to–in his own words–try to “BRAINWASH PEOPLE” into thinking guns are evil.
The Obama administration has one plan, and that is the COMPLETE disarmament of the American people in accordance with UN Treaty (U.S. Department of State Department of State Publication 7277. Of course, they know this will cause widespread outrage, and what better way to extinguish that then to propagate a lie that 20 “five and six” year old kids were killed! One of the girls who was supposedly killed had her picture taken with Obama the day after it happened. The memorial website which was set up by her father was done so “four days” before it happened. There really is a great deal that just doesn’t make sense about the entire incident! Just look on youtube! There’s parents of the victims laughing and it really looks STAGED!!!
Maybe that laughing parent belongs in the same mental institution that Adam Lanza should have been in.
[…] where the quote is being debunked and making people using it look like hicks and hillbillies. https://propagandaprofessor.net/2011/09/26/the-myth-of-hitlers-gun-ban/ Like I wrote earlier, I don't lie. Peace favor your sword, Kirk __________________ Banned […]
The US Civil rights movement did not start to succeed until the minorities started collectively exercising their 2nd amendment rights, and challenging state laws meant to disarm them.
(easily researched, but this is a good prep article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/1/)
Even Martin Luther King Jr applied for a concealed weapons permit (and was denied, because the states did NOT want the minorities armed.)
And as for “well regulated militia,” diagram the sentence- The subject is “the right” the predicate is “shall not be infringed. The first part of the sentence is a nominative absolute- meaning that it cannot exist unless the rest of the sentence is satisfied. In short, the people are the militia by default.
Thalia, I’d like to voice some friendly disagreement. The prevailing thought on the first clause – and historically supported by the words of one of its main proponents, George Mason – is that since since an armed militia under the auspices of government is a reality of life, individual people should be able to have arms as a counterweight the militia’s arms.
Correct- the people have the right, as a check against the government (since the constitution is all about checks and balances.) Many of the federalist papers explain it quite well. It’s really not such a confusing amendment when it is diagrammed like we were taught in grade school.
Funny you mention diagramming, Thalia, since just yesterday, I posted on Facebook a couple of excerpts from the constitution to demonstrate the point of how easy it is to read and understand if you merely eliminate the mid-sentence capitalizations of proper nouns, change the format to an outline from a narrative, and add some white space.
I meant “common” nouns in my previous comment, no proper ones.
Thalia, you are a liar. The Federalist Papers say no such thing; in fact that notion is specifically repudiated in the Federalist Papers. At this point, I do not give gun nuts like you the benefit of the doubt. You know perfectly well what the Federalist Papers say.
#28, #29, #46…. quite a few others…. you might want to re read them.
In that case, you must be a (arguably white) male between 17 and 42.
Question? Would it not be wise to enact a bill/law (what have you) that all who wish to possess a gun would have to take & pass a course & test, both written & physical before legally purchasing, with a license? Just as you would have to in order to drive a vehicle. Couldn’t you even go further by having even more specific courses & tests per the type of weapon & licensure? Just as you must in order to drive a bus or other heavy machinery? Now, I fully admit that I am not learned in this subject what so ever, but I thought I would throw it out here & see what kind of response it would emit.
In several European countries it is a crime to question the official story of Hitler and the Holocaust. If you question the official state story of Hitler, or question any of the details the state has published as fact, you will go to prison. If they have to threaten people with a prison sentence for questioning details about Hitler and the Holocaust, then there must be something wrong with the official story. I suppose we have freedom of speech, except of course, evilnaziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews who would dare question official government propaganda. Ernst Zundel was sent to prison for questioning the official version of the holocaust. Then Ernst Zundel’s defense lawyer was also sent to prison for defending him at trial. If the official story of Hitler is true, why do they need a prison sentence for anyone who questions it? Does sending people to prison for questioning something, make it true? All I know for sure is that if they are imprisoning people for questioning a sacred cow, there must be something wrong with the official story. What are the powers-that-be trying to hide about Adolf Hitler? Why do they not want anyone questioning the official story of Adolf Hitler?
VV, fortunately for you, you have no clue about the Holocaust, you have not been touched by it, directly or indirectly.
“All I know for sure is that if they are imprisoning people for questioning a sacred cow, there must be something wrong with the official story.”
You are wrong here. The “official” story, the unfortunately true story, is that the Nazis enacted discriminatory measures against the Jews and other minorities, in Germany first, then in the countries they occupied. These measures soon were followed by internment, then extermination. Men, women, children. People, just like you.
In France it is an offense to question the existence or size of the crimes against humanity. Also illegal is incitement to racial, sexual and religious hatred.
It is not because the “official story” is a “sacred cow”, it is because denying the existence of a crime against humanity is an insult to the victims, and a way to attack them and their descendants.
Other places, other laws, other customs.
@James: Are you serious? “God has a disdain for swords.” And, if people were really following the words of Jesus, “The NRA would lose all of its members”? First of all, the Bible states that “David was a man after God’s own heart,” and it’s also said that “King Saul killed his thousands, bud David his TEN thousands.” And to imply one cannot be a Christian and still support ownership of guns as afforded to them under the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is an argument that is flat on its face! People use guns for hunting, recreational shooting, and to defend themselves. I know, you think Christians aren’t suppose to defend themselves, right? How do you justify Jesus telling his disciples before they set out on dangerous journeys, “if you do not own a sword, sell your coat and buy one”?
Of course, swords were the weapons of choice then, and many were killed by them in the Old Testament under God’s direction–as when he instructed King Saul to kill ALL the Amalekites and leave not one alive! Saul’s army easily defeated the Amalekites, so he spared their king, and for this reason God regretted making him king, and Saul was stripped of the kingdom, and the kingdom was given to David. I’m not saying violence is appropriate for Christians, or that God wishes us to kill. I’m merely trying to point out that as scripture states, “there is a time to kill,” and your statement that “God despised the sword” in order to attack Christians who own guns is inconsistent with scripture, and baseless.
If you choose to be a fascist, and oppose people’s right to bear arms–a right afforded them by the US Constitution–that is your choice, but please refrain from using rhetoric to attack people who are both Christian and gun owners. Hitler did in fact ban Jews and those who weren’t Nationals from owning firearms, which just so happens to be the ones he set out to eradicate from the earth!
“and many were killed by them in the Old Testament under God’s direction–as when he instructed King Saul to kill ALL the Amalekites and leave not one alive!”
…a really good reason to regard this “god” as either a sick fiction or one hell of a Satanic creature.
Jesus Christ, you are one bloody walking red fucking herring.
“Under their reign, Jews were prohibited from owning guns, just as they were prohibited from doing many things.”
Is this not what the fuck people are talking about when they talk about ‘Hitler’s gun ban’?
Nope.
Well said, Annica.
Um… yeah. very perceptive and articulate by the gun culture’s usual standards, I suppose.
Dirk says: “Jesus Christ, you are one bloody walking red fucking herring. “Under their reign, Jews were prohibited from owning guns, just as they were prohibited from doing many things.” Is this not what the fuck people are talking about when they talk about ‘Hitler’s gun ban’?”
As you know perfectly well, Dirk, that is not “what the fuck people are talking about…” The (lying) right wing argument is that Hitler imposed a general gun ban in Germany as part of his seizure of dictatorial power. The truth is, his seizure of power was completed within months of his being named Chancellor in 1933, years before he denied guns to one extremely small segment of the German population. The 1938 law, whatever it contained, had absolutely nothing to do with the rise of the Nazis.
It’s no wonder Christ called the Jews hypocrites. They squawk and squawk about Hitler’s alleged imposition of draconian gun laws in Germany, while they campaign to outlaw guns in America.
More innocent children are murdered every day in abortion slaughter houses than are killed in gun massacres over the course of an entire decade. But the Jews aren’t saying “boo” about that, are they?
Cut “the Jews” nonsense and start looking at people as individuals. Plenty of Jews are against an assault weapons ban, and are against abortion. Here’s a link to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership: http://jpfo.org/ and another link to a Jewish anti-abortion group. http://jewishprolifefoundation.org/Jewish_Pro-Life_Foundation/Welcome.html
People who want to put other people in prison over whether something is the truth or a lie, when there is no victim or crime, is criminal. Furthermore, the victim industry is one big scam to foist guilt on those who still have a modicum of common sense. As Bill Clinton once said, “We will not tolerate intolerance.” Seems like some people never learn the repetitions of history. Here’s the kicker (if you’re a professing Christian), “If you should believe a lie and have no love of the truth, God will send strong delusion” II Thes. 2:10-11. It should be apparent who is delusional these days.
Thanks, P.O.P.!
You have my respect for intellectual honesty, my admiration for staying calm in front of the most outrageous posts, my envy for using humor so appropriately.
Keep up the good work!
I shall do my best!
Well this article was semi interesting until the author began taking childish stabs at the opposite side alluding to that they are all a bunch of conspiracy theorists….
“And it has become an article of faith among the gun culture that had they been armed, the Holocaust would not have happened (that is, among those members of the gun culture who know that the Holocaust really did happen).”
This author make some (kind of?) valid points, but then decided to write the rest of the article with the logical backing of a dog.
-1/10 Author should not quit his REAL day job.
It is a fact of life that a great many gun fanatics are also conspiracy theorists of many flavors, including Holocaust deniers. You are most welcome to explain how stating facts constitutes “childish stabs”.
[…] from them. Here are, by far, the most widely read and commented upon posts on this blog : (1) The Myth of Hitler’s Gun Ban; (2) Estimating Defensive Gun Uses Reasonably; (3) Make My Day: Mention Gun Defense […]
A gun is designed to kill. Anyone buying a gun is, in law, in a frame of mind that constitutes mens rea. Pulling the trigger is actus reus. However, there are many cases where mens rea is sufficient to incarcerate a person for life. Discuss….T.
Do you mean there are cases when mens rea ALONE is sufficient to incarcerate a person for life?
Yes, otherwise Guantanamo wouldn’t exist. T.
You need to prove mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, the intention to kill is a PLAUSIBLE reason for buying a gun. But there are other plausible reasons as well, sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt that anyone who buys a gun has the mens rea to kill, let alone to kill a human unlawfully. The intention to kill a moose is not inherently unlawful, nor to put down Old Yeller, nor indeed to defend oneself against attack (although I take the position that carrying for self-defense should be discouraged on public policy grounds, and here in Canada it’s often a violation of s.88 of the Criminal Code, possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace).
The contents of the kitchen drawers and the toolshed were the weapons of choice for warfare up to the 16th century when low explosives came into use as propellants for bullets.Now, I can hammer a nail into a bit of wood with the butt of a Glock 17 but it’s a useless hammer since it breaks and splinters half way through the job. So,I must say that he purpose of a Glock 17 9mm Polymer Framed Handgun is not for hammering in nails. Now, what else can I do with it? Oh, right, I can propel a bullet at 1200m/s into the body of someone else. That will hurt them.won’t it? T.
So, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
OK, but so far, I see no evidence of a ‘well regulated militia’ all I see in the US is an unregulated population in posession of lethal weapons that they keep and bear to defend themselves against….well what? A democratic state that will suddenly turn on them? Their neighbors who will attempt to kill them? Hoards of Canadians suddenly coming south to invade Florida? (OK that battle was lost a long time ago). What is the reason to have a handgun or a semi-automatic short barreled rifle? Hobby? Sport? Hunting – hey if you can’t bring it down with the first shot you shouldn’t be hunting with a rifle – maybe a Claymore mine would be better….. I see so many dubious arguments here as to why America needs to spend so much money to so little effect by buying handguns. T.
Er, I think you’ve mistaken my position. I am not advocating unrestricted access to firearms. I’m actually very much in favour of stricter regulations. But we don’t need invalid quasi-legal arguments to support that. I’m not going to accept a silly argument just because I happen to agree with the conclusion. You just don’t establish mens rea to commit murder by the mere fact of someone’s buying a gun.
On the subject of UK/US attitudes: A Scottish guy who is lost in an American city and is slightly drunk, walks up to the back door of a house to ask for directions, as he would have back home in Aberdeen where he came from, and is shot dead by the home owner. What a sad, sad country. A population in fear. No pursuit of life, liberty and happiness here, just a fear of strangers.T.
@Tom Cantine, Then why buy a gun if you don’t intend to use it to kill? There’s no point in waving the bloody thing around just to frighten someone, you could do that with a carving knife. T.
Swords are designed for killing. I own one. I’m probably the best authority on the state of my mind with respect to my intention in owning one, and I know with complete certainty that I do not have it for the purpose of killing people. It is decorative and ceremonial, even though it’s made of real metal and could certainly be used to kill.
Now, admittedly, the testimony of the accused can be viewed with some suspicion when he says he had no intention to kill someone. But I’m not trying to defend myself against a charge here. I’m drawing on my own experience with states of mind to make inferences about the state of mind of someone who buys a gun. Since it’s possible for me to own a sword (a device designed for killing) without my harbouring any intention to kill someone with it ever, I have reasonable doubts about the mens rea of someone who buys a gun.
In some circumstance, of course, the fact of someone’s buying a gun can be evidence of premeditation. If I buy a gun an hour before I show up at your door to accuse you of ruining my life, and then I shoot you, it’s kind of hard to claim I just suddenly lost it; buying the gun was more likely part of preparing to kill you. But without those sorts of circumstances, merely buying a gun is not strong evidence of intention to commit murder.
If you are a college grad. Ask for your money back. They f#%ked you royally.
Men, want to die defending themselves and others instead of in a tank breathing Prussian Blue.
Not hard to understand, unless you have been “enlightened” by the left.
Good guys – Believe in America and her Constitution.
Bad guys – Want to take away some or all of your rights or seriously affect you enjoying those guaranteed rights.
Really very simple.
Everyone is a “good guy” up until…………
You like freedom of movement? Drive your overpowered car down an engineered highway at speeds unsurvivalable?
I like shooting paper targets with a variety of firearms of my liking.
You want your car to have a top speed of 3 MPH and a machette welded to a metal dashboard?
I admit that was a stupid comparison. You car is not a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Gun ownership can not be infringed.
The “well regulated militia you speak of, is the only reason for “the right of the People to keep and bear arms”
Not hunting, target practice or protection from Indians or daily dangers. Those are only the wonderful byproduct of our Liberty.
SCOTUS and this old hillbilly agree. To protect citizens from oppression, like gun control.
“I came into this world screaming and covered in anothers’ blood, leaving this world the same is not a problem.”
Wow, Spud.
Apparently the Supreme court does NOT believe the right to bear arms cannot be regulated. Not sure what you mean by infringed.
I like the car anology and think it reasonable that cars and guns be treated in similar ways.
I do not think the Foudners considered the possibility that transportation could be banned. If it had occurred to them, i am pretty sure there would have been an amendment in there about the right to ride and/or attach a horse to a carriage.
So “well regulated militia” seems prett clear that the founders did not want ideological paranoid fanatics hoarding tanks, flame throwers, anti aircraft batteries and assorted ordinance.
It seems quite reasonable to me that the rights and responsibilities of owning a car are at least comparable togun ownership, since both can and do cause horrific violent death and destruction to innocent people every day.
SO What say I let you KEEP your armaments, as per the constitution and bill of rights. But you have to geta license to show competence in handling something that can easily kill someone. Register your weapons so that us non paranoid people make sure it is legal, PAy for liability insurance so that us non violent people don’t ahve to pay for the costs of your accidentally or purposefully killing or injuring someone that did NOT invade your home. Then when the muslim socialist government comes to TAKE you guns, you and the 100 million other people who have been patiently waiting to protect us, can kill them dead and save the american way of life.
And tell you what, if they come to take your cars, I will be there behind the barricades with you.
Good read. As a gun owner, I do dislike the constant and tiring spectacle that has become of reasoned debate in this country – each side weilding their own buckets of claptrap…I do however, take umbrage with one line in your article.
“…the concept of a handful of citizens armed with hunting rifles and Saturday night specials fending off an army is delusional hubris peculiar to gun addicts. On American soil, its most glorious day in the sun has been perhaps Waco.”
I would argue that its most glorious day was the revolution…but to each his own
The idea that the Revolutionary War was won by allied bands of armed citizens is a myth. It was won by colonial militias united into organized, disciplined armies by Washington and other commanders, trained and drilled by French and Prussian advisers, and equipped with the latest military hardware from the Dutch, French, and Spanish governments.
Even the victory at Yorktown, which all but ended the war, was achieved because the Americans had a proper European-style army and conducted a proper European-style battle and siege, and because they were reinforced by French army and naval units.
What The Professor is talking about is the modern-day fantasy that disorganized, untrained, undisciplined, unregulated citizens who happen to own guns could engage and defeat a modern army. Especially considering the latter are equipped with WMDs.
As several people here, including myself, have pointed out, Mike, the revolution wasn’t fought by just a bunch of armed citizens, but by an organized army. And, though many Americans today like to ignore the fact, they had some crucial assistance — i.e., from the French.
As an American currently living in Europe, it blows my mind to see so much disinformation and the blatant rewriting of history. Ask a German if hitler was conservative or progressive. In the spectrum of political belief Fasicisism is on the right and communism on the left. If a modern day conservative took an honest look at Nazi policies they would find some striking similarities. The German people truly believed that the Jews and Roma were coming in and taking good jobs away from more deserving Germans. What does this sound like? This is just one if many similarities, the list goes on and on like an old sad song. So lets put an end to this silly behavior by ending the copy and paste function’s from our devices. I’m tired of seeing quotes never said. Same goes for the mountains of fake Thomas Jefferson quotes.
“The German people truly believed that the Jews and Roma were coming in and taking good jobs away from more deserving Germans. What does this sound like?”
And so says a liberal about 3 days after the Republicans were forced to make Latino their 2016 front-runner in order to compete with the preference programs and giveaways of the Democrats? What – the presidency isn’t a good job?
Perhaps something from the BBC? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912
Interesting. There’s a common tendency among the Second Amendment crowd to cherry-pick those statistics that seemingly show that “gun control doesn’t work”, and to equate correlation with causation. I’ll be addressing this topic more in the future.
For ‘Children’, assume that they are between the ages of five and fifteen years, I think this covers most of the United States in terms of definition. T.
Anyone whom has little understanding of our historic need for weapons to protect ourselves should remember how America was founded… Hello ignorant puppets, open your minds, think for yourselves and cut your strings.
I haven’t heard anybody argue that we need to protect ourselves. I’ve only heard people argue that the average citizen has no reason to own a gun.
The only reason we need to buy a gun is to protect ourselves against people who have guns. Now,write this up on the blackboard 250,000,000 times and come and see me after class! T.
And then of course we need bigger guns to protect ourselves from the people who buy guns to protect themselves against people who have guns. And rocket launchers to protect ourselves against people who buy bigger guns to protect themselves against the people who buy guns to protect themselves from people with guns. Hold on. we’re gonna need a helluva lot more blackboards.
…Or fewer guns. I vote for the latter. By the way, I was robbed at gunpoint a few years back. I gave the robber a phony PIN, so all he got was about $50 in cash & an old purse. The thief was peeved & came back, resulting in his arrest–because he had a concealed gun. Personally, I’d rather lose $50 than take a human life–and/or lose my own in the process; and, by the way, unless the person with the gun is there specifically to kill you, don’t underestimate the power of intelligence, guile & a good watchdog as weapons of defense. So far, I’ve managed to maintain the first two, and I haven’t been without a dog since that incident.
I was mugged at gunpoint once too, and managed to get out of it with my wits. I can’t help suspecting that a great many incidents could be prevented that way. And by exercising more caution in the first place than I did that night.
True Weimar republic created gun laws to comply with the peace treaty of WW1 but Hitler pursue to deny guns rights to everyone suspected to be against his rule. “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” –Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke. A Gun Control Law Passed by the German Government One Day After Kristallnacht.
Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)
Classified guns for “sporting purposes”.
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.” But under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition.”[4]
The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[5]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[4]
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[4]
‘Children’ in this context means a person between 5 and 15 years of age. T.
[…] level of rabidly hateful insanity spewing out of the Second Amendment crowd, my previous post on The Myth of Hitler’s Gun, written more than a year ago, has suddenly been catapulted through the stratosphere, at least by […]
I’ve now published the first of two follow-ups to this post.
https://propagandaprofessor.net/2013/02/18/more-on-the-myth-of-hitlers-gun-ban-part-1/
The 1938 German Weapons Act
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.” But under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition.”[4]
The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[5]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[4]
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[4]
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns’ serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
come agian, jews cant have guns, staright forward and the truth, anything else!
On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, promulgated Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons
Well, if Jews didn’t have guns we wouldn’t have Gaza eh? T.
It’s amazing how many gun advocates equate self defense with ballistic weapons to be equivalent of some spiritually advanced state of mind. Two of the most pertinent quotes in the Christian Bible include; “Thou Shalt Not Kill”–part of the ten commandments in the old testament and, “He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword”–in the Christian New Testament.
If these people had their way, we would have a nation based on a Theocracy, not a free representative government. And, I suggest that if they want to envision a society which revolves around one particular “acceptable” religion, then look no further than the Taliban, and see the future you desire.
It is also ironic how anything that deviates from their own theologies are often feared and criticized without reason. i.e. what is the difference between Karma, and the Christian axiom that we shall all sow what we reap? If you claim to know, then you do not understand that they are exactly the same thing!
I can hear them saying, “you poor misguided fool, Christianity has nothing to do with force–only heathens like Muslims advocate that.”
So, every use of violence by “our” side comes only out of pure self-defense, or by spiritual righteousness! Well I hope Christianity can finally evolve a away from its own forms of violence and fanaticism—best exemplified by the Crusades between the 11th and 13th centuries, and the Spanish inquisition which made sure that only the “right” knowledge was spread.
I love Christ and I love the beauty awe expressed in the love of his teachings, but it is hard to picture the savior waving a sword and screaming, “Death to the infidels!”
What is happening now is a watered down program of repression, suppression and manipulative religious domination, all so wrongly claiming to represent the teachings of Christ!
If certain people want to teach religious doctrines then why not use the venues you have always been free to use in America–your own churches! If you want to teach your children about self defense, in the guise of, a self-righteous gun owners creed, then don’t allow them to read the Bible or think for themselves about what love and truth really mean!
“It’s amazing how many gun advocates equate self defense with ballistic weapons to be equivalent of some spiritually advanced state of mind.”
While this is true, it doesn’t necessarily follow. There is a subset of gun-rights advocates who are libertarian anarchists and reject authority in any form, including religion or God.
For them, self-defense is equivalent to a morally advanced state of mind, one that rejects coercion in any form but especially that derived from force or the threat of force. They call it the non-(or zero-)aggression policy (commonly called ZAP).
What they seek to create is not a theocracy but a stateless society with no government or rulers or even laws, just a free market and contractual volunteerism.
Yes, No stereotype is absolutely NOT true except perhaps the stereotype that all members of a given subset act exactly like the any of the other individuals or groups with the same, or with similar ideologies.
Very clearly and succinctly stated: thank you!
http://www.deathcamps.org/occupation/brody%20ghetto.html
The final liquidation of the ghetto occurred on 21 May 1943, in the course of which members of underground organisation opened fire on the Ukrainian policemen and Germans. Several Ukrainians were killed. … in the chaos that ensued, many Jews escaped from the ghetto. Among them were some members of the resistance, led by Weiler. He survived the war in a partisan unit.
I am a bit confused as to why so many people keep posting (usually without comment) snippets about the Jewish resistance. I’m guessing that this is intended to discredit something I’ve stated in this article. It doesn’t.
I served in the United States Marine Corps, in the United States Army, and for years recently as a policeman, at first as a patrolman and later as a Detective. Therefore, I spent decades carrying firearms, and still do.
I was just wondering, does this make me a “gun addict”? Am I part of the “gun culture”? Frankly, I can’t think of anyone who is more “addicted” to guns, and part of “gun culture”, than a Marine, a soldier, or a policeman. Am I right? Surely police officers and military personnel are more ‘in love with guns’, so to speak, than civilians..? It would be difficult to imagine differently.
No more than doctors are addicted to drugs or part of the drug culture.
Personally, I use the term “gun addict” not as a pejorative for gun owners or enthusiasts generally, but as a quasi-clinical description of a particular psychological dependency on guns. That is, people who own or carry guns because it makes them FEEL safer (as distinct from actually making them safer, which guns only do in certain special cases, not the overwhelming majority of ordinary citizens). People who keep guns for sport target shooting or hunting, or as collector’s items, or as family heirlooms, or as fashion accessories, are probably not addicts so long as they feel as safe without their guns as with them.
Since I’ve been persuaded by the statistics that carrying firearms increases overall risk to society (including the individuals carrying the firearms), I tend to think that someone who carries for self-defense is mistaken about the benefits, and therefore a likely candidate for gun addiction. However, the balance of risk and reward is different from person to person, and particularly when it comes to trained police officers. Carrying as part of your job isn’t inherently addictive (though the Kalamazoo police officer vacationing in Calgary last year who complained about how threatened he felt without his gun sounds like he’s addicted), because generally speaking you are aware of and voluntarily assuming added personal risk as part of your job which is to reduce the overall risk to society. It gets a little greyer if you’re no longer on duty, but if your actual purpose in mind is civic-minded intention to act as a reserve cop in emergencies, then it’s probably not addiction. However, in that case, you’re no longer actually carrying for self-defense, because you’re knowingly assuming a GREATER risk.
Thank you for your response. Though thoughtful, your response is faulty on several levels.
Before I get into that, I will say that I, along with most current or former police officers I know, never do anything to “feel” safer– we take action, whether it be carrying a firearm or whatever it might be, to BE safer. Safety has nothing to do with feelings, but reality.
Next, you wrote, regarding carrying firearms — “..as distinct from actually making them safer, which guns only do in certain special cases, not the overwhelming majority of ordinary citizens..” Again, as someone who served as a police officer for years, I ask you, can you please list, using specifics, what these “certain special cases” would be. I will respond to each as you list them. I am very curious to know what these “special situations” are, I am not aware of them at this time.
Next, you wrote– “..Since I’ve been persuaded by the statistics that carrying firearms increases overall risk to society (including the individuals carrying the firearms)”
In response to that, first I will say that, compared to your “persuasion by statistics”, my years of experience, training, investigations of hundreds of actual shootings, and familiarity with statistics, that is– actually having been a police officer, trump it. I grant you that some familiarity with statistics is a pair of sevens, say, in comparison to most peoples’ hands… but, I’m afraid my experience is a royal flush, in comparison. I’m sure you will agree with that. Furthermore, I don’t know a single police officer, current or former, who agrees with your statement. If it were true, then police officers would be safer without firearms than with them… but that’s another topic. (Before you attempt to say that the difference between a police officer and a citizen who has never been a police officer is the officer’s “training”, I will let you in on a fact– all it takes to remain a police officer is to pass a simple course (called the QT) at the pistol range, once or twice a year. During the last years of my service, when I was a Detective, I never wore the uniform, I wore suits to work everyday, and my use of my own pistol was limited to brief practices, and then actually passing the course. Some “training” that is.)
Secondly, I would like to know exactly what these “statistics” are, and where you are finding them. Again, I would like specific references. Most government (FBI) statistics are taken from what are known as IBR’s, or Incident Based Reports, that officers must fill out regarding every incident they encounter, so their departments can forward them to the FBI. As someone who filled out thousands of them, and had to use thousands of them during investigations, I could talk to you for months about IBR’s and their pitfalls, unreliability, etc. If there is another source of “statistics”, I would love to know about it.
Further on, you wrote– “I tend to think that someone who carries for self-defense is mistaken about the benefits, and therefore a likely candidate for gun addiction.” Forgive me, but I am going to question you just as someone who purports to be an “expert witness” is questioned, in order to certify their status as an expert witness, in court. For example, if a witness in court states that a suspect is “insane”, the opposing attorney will ask him to cite his portfolio/qualifications in order to be able to reliably dub someone “insane”. In the same way, in this case, the word “addiction” has a very specific clinical meaning. So I ask you, what are your qualifications to be able to speak about a clinical “addiction” to guns, or to anything else? Are you a psychiatrist? A psychologist? A clinician of any kind? If so, please tell what your training is in, and from what school/institution… do you have an MD? A PhD? A Masters in the subject perhaps…? If you are trained and have studied addiction, especially addiction to firearms, in an academic setting, I would be satisfied and we can talk further about “addiction”. But if this is simply your layman’s opinion of what an “addiction” is, I’m afraid that carries about as much weight in a discussion as “my friend Steve says the defendant is addicted” would have in court.
Your next statement puzzles me– “..generally speaking you are aware of and voluntarily assuming added personal risk as part of your job which is to reduce the overall risk to society.” Unless I am mistaken, you seem to be arguing that “a police officer can effectively use a firearm to protect others (society), but is incapable of protecting himself with that very same firearm”. If that is not what you are saying, I apologize. But if not that, I am at a loss to figure out what exactly you’re trying to put forward. If you are actually attempting to argue that a police officer is able to defend others but not himself, I could write volumes about how ludicrous that is. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Finally, I need to educate you about one point regarding police officers. you wrote– “.. It gets a little greyer if you’re no longer on duty, but if your actual purpose in mind is civic-minded intention to act as a reserve cop in emergencies, then it’s probably not addiction. However, in that case, you’re no longer actually carrying for self-defense, because you’re knowingly assuming a GREATER risk.”
You may not be aware of the fact that most cities, at least in my state, REQUIRE their police officers to carry their badge and firearm, off duty, especially while in their area of Jurisdiction (officers have the ability to arrest for ALL crimes, felonies and misdemeanors, inside their own city, and can arrest/intervene in FELONIES within their entire state, whether on or off duty… this is something many people don’t realize). This requirement has many reasons, but one of the most glaring is liability– imagine if there were an incident in which, say, someone’s child is hurt, or someone is raped/robbed, etc, IN THE PRESENCE OF A POLICE OFFICER, who could not act because he was not armed. There would be (and have been) lawsuits galore against the city, not to mention questions raised about the ability of police officers to protect and defend citizens. Headlines and newspapers, and most judges and juries, for that matter, don’t care if a police officer is on or “off duty”… I’m sure you get the point. Much more importantly, a police officer is an officer 24/7. It is not something one goes “off duty” from (other than while you’re off duty, you aren’t getting paid– pay is hourly) — I lost track of the many, many times I was woken up during my off days to come in to investigate a shooting, or to come in to interview a suspect I took a warrant out on a year earlier, and was just picked up, etc etc. And if an incident takes place, in your presence, especially while you are in your own city, or even state, you are expected to act. On or off duty.
Anyway, I am no longer a police officer, I’m a private investigator attending law school, my intention is to become a prosecutor. But I have a Concealed Carry permit, and I always carry a firearm. Not because I “feel” safer, but because I AM safer.
Finally, I would like to ask what your background is– how long did you serve as a police officer? Did you serve in the military? Any experience or training? Have you ever been involved in incidents involving firearms– either because you’re being threatened, shot at, or have to use it in the course of your day? Basically I am attempting to find what your experience is to be able to state “I tend to think that someone who carries for self-defense is mistaken about the benefits”. It would be difficult for someone who has never carried a firearm or used it to defend themselves or others to know anything useful about its benefits, much less be able to speak about actually using them. Again, forgive me, but this is simply a method used in court to “impeach a witness”– to either certify someone as an expert in the subject matter, or to impeach them, and invalidate them as witnesses who have information germane to the case.
Thank you for your time.
David Vazquez
I have an MA in philosophy, and wrote my thesis on what I called the Detection Principle in rule enforcement, which naturally led me to my next degree, a bachelor of laws. I have in fact practiced criminal law, and at the moment I’m teaching business law.
My involvement in this discussion is more in the capacity of an advocate than a witness. I’m not advancing any particular factual claims on my own authority, and so the attempt to impeach me as a witness is misplaced. What I’ve offered is an argument to be considered on its own merits, namely, the idea that people can become addicted to guns in a similar way to becoming addicted to drugs.
I have said that gun addicts are those who carry guns to FEEL safer. Someone who carries to actually BE safer would not likely be an addict, but we have a problem: someone who FEELS safer (whether he is or not) is likely to insist that he actually IS safer. Now, you might argue that everyone who carries a gun is safer, and thus seek to dismiss my argument that way. I already mentioned having been persuaded by statistics that most people who carry put themselves and others at greater rather than lesser risk. “Responsible” gun owners might not, but there are a lot of people who fancy themselves “responsible” but aren’t: Nancy Lanza, George Zimmerman, Oskar Pistorius are just a few names that come to mind from recent headlines. My reading over the decades has persuaded me that for most people, keeping a gun is more dangerous than not keeping one, on balance. Example source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/ But I’m not testifying here. If you think everyone (not just people who confront violent criminals for a living) is safer keeping a gun, then you’re free to adduce evidence to that effect.
I would suggest not relying too heavily on your own expert credentials as a former police officer. As an exercise, think about how you would go about impeaching such a witness.
Mr Cantine–
Sorry, I didn’t see that you had responded to my post earlier.
Your background, taken at face value is impressive, at least to me. The “Detection Principle” sounds intriguing, and I’ll be looking it up later.
May I ask in what capacity you practiced criminal law?
To address your specific points:
“Now, you might argue that everyone who carries a gun is safer, and thus seek to dismiss my argument that way.”
I do not argue that. Clearly, people who are insane, who are convicted felons, and people who have been issued what are called Protective Orders in my state (usually for family violence or threats/stalking etc) are not safer with guns, and certainly the pubic wouldn’t be safer. So I must be very careful to point that I never argued that “everyone” who carries a gun is safer.
“there are a lot of people who fancy themselves “responsible” but aren’t: Nancy Lanza, George Zimmerman, Oskar Pistorius are just a few names that come to mind from recent headlines.”
That’s just the trouble– apart from the fact that 2 out of the three weren’t necessarily “irresponsible”– there is no evidence that Nancy Lanza was “irresponsible”, and George Zimmerman’s case is still being adjudicated, which means that we cannot speak of his case with any reliability here.. and as for Pistorius, his alleged crime took place in South Africa, so it has little relevance to the US 2nd Amendment and US law– it is only 3 names, it is not “a lot”.
Allow me to use an analogy. I’m using it because the other day in the course of my work I happened upon a stray cat that had 2 feet on each leg– it had 4 front feet. If I were to see, say, 2 or 3 more cats with this anomaly during the course of my life, would I then be able to state that “a lot” of cats have 4 front feet? One of the courses I recently took (don’t ask why) was Biological Statistics. One of the things we studied was finding out if a group of individuals falling within a certain range exist in a “statistically significant” amount of individuals. Don’t ask me to recite it here, but there is a formula to follow and calculations to make, in order to ascertain this. And to move the analogy into what we’re discussing– and here is where my experience comes in– for every supposed ” responsible gun owner” who out of the blue allegedly shoots someone, I can present, LITERALLY, about 3,000 to 5,000 shooters who are NOT part of that group– in other words, 3,000 to 5,000 shooters who are convicted felons, people with previous stints in jail, drug abusers, mentally unstable people, etc, for every ONE supposed “reponsible gun owner shooter”. And this is further backed up by experience– I challenge you to speak to ANY police officer with more than a few years of experience who will agree with you that the majority of shooters are people who have had no involvement with the law in any capacity prior to the day they shot someone.
I can go on and on with analogies. One of my piglets on my farm is tiny– she is under 5 lbs in weight, and will not reach 18 or 20lbs, ever. However, all of her siblings, and the breed itself, reaches 200 or 300lbs in weight at adulthood. Can we say that the pig that weighs 5lbs is typical of all pigs? No, because the incidence of such pigs is very very low. And the incidence of such pigs, and even the incidence of cats with 4 front paws, is much much higher than the incidence of people who shoot others illegally without any previous indication or involvement with the law. In other words, not statistically significant at all.
One of the things I’ve learned in the Statistics class, and in another class called Genetic Evolution, is that almost any kind of variation of form and behavior that can be imagined, has, is, or will exist at some point. That’s how evolution works– only the most successful variations will continue. But all kinds of wierdnesses exist, to coin a word. And what you are describing is one of those very rare wierdnesses. But that’s what it is, a wierdness, not a common event, and certainly not something to use as ammunition to change the law.
As for the discussion of “addiction” to guns… with all due respect, since neither of us is a trained clinician or psychiatrist or psychologist, I think that discussion about that would be fruitless. it would be like our arguing about the relative strengths of materials used in the Space Shuttle, when neither of us is an engineer. We need to be “certified experts” on the subject, to continue the court analogy.
I’ll be glad to go to the link you provided, and will address it after I’ve read it.
“If you think everyone (not just people who confront violent criminals for a living) is safer keeping a gun..”
I already addressed that. However, you might keep in mind that military personnel don’t “confront violent criminals for a living”, yet are pretty proficient with firearms (at least all Marines are, and some Army… less so for the other branches). Furthermore, as I stated earlier, police don’t necessarily have the greatest training, and there are many non-law enforcement personnel who are much, much better shots than many police are, and are better trained. Also, think of all the literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of individuals who are FORMER law enforcement, and I’m sure you’re not arguing that former law enforcement should not carry weapons.
I’m anxious to see where your “statistics” come from. I am hoping against hope that it’s not based on liberal (in the non-political sense) interpretations of IBR’s… which I’m sure if you practiced criminal law, you are intimately familiar with….
Thanks for your response,
David Vazquez
Thank you, but my background should be of no relevance here. I only mentioned it since you asked. (And in response to your followup, I’ve defended criminal clients. I should also specify that my experience and training is Canadian, which has some notable differences from most U.S. jurisdictions, but we’re all Common Law, and the basic principles tend to be similar.
Now, the reason I said, “…you might argue that everyone who carries a gun is safer” was because that’s really the only option for rejecting the idea of gun addiction outright. For people who are ACTUALLY made safer by guns, feeling safer is not (or at least not completely) illusory. I suppose it could still be carried to an unhealthy extreme, like someone who panics at the absence of a seatbelt on a city bus might be “addicted” to the sense of security seatbelts might give him, but mainly I’m concerned about people who, in the desire to be safer, actually end up putting themselves and others at greater risk.
Now, you grant that there are people whose being armed elevates rather than reduces risk, so we’re on the same page there. The point we disagree over seems to be, how MANY such people are there? I gather you think that they are the exception, and that most “normal” people are made safer by being armed. I tend to think the opposite, that most “normal” people are actually at greater risk for owning weapons, and people who are made safer are the exception. (I’m excluding the military from consideration in all of this, since war is a special case with its own legal, moral, philosophical and tactical problems. However, it’s worth noting that the very distinction of “war” from ordinary civilian life in North America is loaded with assumptions; people in the most lawless and violent areas might not see such a distinction as meaningful.)
In my experience, not just in peace-loving Canada but also for the years I’ve lived in the States, violence has been the exception rather than the rule. No, I’ve never been shot at, but far from that disqualifying as an expert on what it’s “really” like out there, I’d suggest it’s actually fairly representative. MOST people have never been shot at, and most never will be. There has been a dramatic downward trend in violence in the world, and I mean an absolutely STAGGERING drop. In the U.S., the homicide rate is 4.8 per 100,000. That is TINY by historical standards, even if it’s three times higher than Canada and most of Western Europe. Your ACTUAL risk of being attacked and killed by a random stranger is tiny. Yes, I understand, you’ve been shot at by a random stranger, but that doesn’t mean it’s a common occurrence. Lottery winners are not better authorities on probability than those who choose not to buy tickets based on the odds.
The risks associated with keeping a gun include theft or unauthorized use, and accidental or deliberate misuse. I include suicides in this category, or at least some of them, because there are at least a few suicides that would not happen but for the presence of a gun. Not all suicides are the result of careful and determined planning; some are momentary lapses that would be regretted if they didn’t make regretting impossible. There are a lot of ways that keeping a gun can go wrong, and it’s naive to dismiss any of them as “But I would never let THAT happen!” The odds may be small, overall, but they’re not zero.
Are your chances of being hurt as a result of keeping a gun higher than the chances of being a victim of a crime? No, probably not, but that’s not the proper comparison. What we need to look at it is the net difference keeping a gun makes to the overall risk of harm. There are, after all, a whole lot of crimes that a gun is useless to prevent, and the tactical situation of many others is such that you just don’t get a chance to shoot back. So if your base chance of being harmed by crime when you don’t have a gun is A, and your base chance of being harmed by crime when you HAVE a gun is B, and your base risk of being harmed by keeping a gun is C, it’s only actually a net improvement to keep a gun if C(A-B), and so keeping/carrying a gun actually exposes them to greater overall risk. I expect someone can provide some hard statistics on this, but I’m not trying to establish any cold hard facts here. Rather, I’m just trying to explain why I think “gun addiction” is a meaningful concept. People who mistakenly think the gun makes them safer, and who develop unrealistic anxiety about being unarmed, are what I would call addicted. Perhaps not in the strictest clinical sense, but at least in a usefully analogical way: they are unhealthily dependent on something external to make them feel normal.
Tom,
Actually the March-April issue of Mother Jones contains some interesting statistics in regards to many of the issues you and others have been discussing. I suppose some will believe that such a magazine has a liberal bias, but it also has a great reputation for doing top notch Investigative journalism. Some of the most pertinent statistics are:
1. Keeping a gun at home doesn’t make you safer. For every time a gun is used for self defense in a home, 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns and kids happen in the home. 43% of homes that have both guns and kids have at least 1 unlocked firearm.
2.Carrying a gun for self-defense does not make you safer. In 2011 nearly 10 times more people were shot to death in arguments, than by civilians who tried to stop a crime with a gun.
3. After a close look at cases where 1% of gun owner claim to have used one to defend themselves or their property, it was discovered that more than 50% of these involved aggressive use of a gun, which, for example, only escalated an argument.
4. A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4 to 5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.
5.For those who feel they must continue to arm themselves in order to defend themselves against the government, gun owners actually outnumber both the Feds and the cops combined by a ration of 79 to 1. Civilians own 310 million guns already, and, law enforcement agents and the military combined have only 4 million.
Mother Jones goes on to destroy myths about guns and gun use–with 10 different examples of these myths–each, listing several statistics that disprove popular assumptions and untrue claims by gun advocates. I would recommend that anyone should read it.
We live in a time, where, as the P.O.P often takes note of–if we don’t like the facts, we just make up some of our own. But, I am just saying that a very reputable journal like Mother Jones, does research that is almost always lauded by other journalist,.and, I believe some of them even have a conservative slant!
Thank you, Peter. That’s a good sampling of some of the stuff I’ve seen over the years that’s led me to my current view on the folly of keeping guns for individual/household defense.
Just yesterday, I found myself reflecting on the game theory implications, and realized another reason why we should be doubtful of the claim that carrying a gun makes one safer. Back in the Cold War, the doctrine of MAD worked (for the most part) because you knew that no matter how devastating your first strike, the other side would still be able to launch enough missiles to incinerate you as well. So it was an effective deterrence.
But, at least on an individual bases, guns don’t work this way. The whole POINT of using a gun in self defense is that it prevents your assailant from being able to continue attacking. Gun conflict typically favours the person who gets the drop on the other; if I feel you might be a potential threat as an argument becomes heated, I may feel obliged to draw before you do in an effort to get you to back down. A good offense may or may not be the BEST defense, but it can be pretty effective. So right there is a built-in factor that to some extent promotes aggressively pre-emptive gun use. The person who’s drawing first, even if it’s just to make the other guy back off, may well believe he’s acting purely in self-defense, but that’s not how it will be regarded by the courts.
Does this tactical dynamic contribute to higher rates of gun violence? I’d be amazed if it didn’t. And some studies seem to bear this out: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
Tom,
yes there certainly are a lot more factors and nuances to be considered in gun confrontations—despite what groups like the NRA would have us believe!
Personally, I don’t know if “gun addict” has any validity, but what bothers me are the people who claim:
“Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon — rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything — any time, any place, without asking anyone’s permission.”
http://www.lneilsmith.org/atlanta.html
Combine that with their unwavering certainty that the Second Amendment was created to give ordinary citizens the right and ability to overthrow the government if they feel it has turned tyrannical, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Being as you are a former policeman, perhaps you can understand when I say, I am more frightened of an armed next door neighbor blowing me away because my dog dug up his garden, then I am of the police invading my home because they mistook it for a drug den.
And before you say the former cannot happen, you should know better than I do that it has, and more times than either of us would like.
To begin with, I object to your method of presenting your case as you wrote in your last sentence — “you should know better than I that it has, and more times than either of us would like.” I’m sorry, but that is not acceptable. That would be like a prosecuting attorney stating to the court that it is a forgone conclusion that the defendant is guilty, without presenting a shred of evidence to prove it.
No, I have never, in my years as a police detective, worked a case in which anyone was “blown away” because their neighbor dug up their garden. In fact, of the hundreds of shooting suspects I have interviewed (and by “shooting” I mean any incident in which a suspect discharged a weapon illegally), not a single one did it in reference to a garden. In fact, I can’t think of one that even owned a flower garden. The majority of suspects I dealt with lived in projects and in rooming houses, with no gardens to speak of. Most were gang members of one kind or another, and gardening was not a priority. Furthermore, I don’t have any experience personally with anyone attempting to shoot me or assaulting me with a firearm due to gardening. Long before I became a police officer I was assaulted, beaten and robbed by a gang member with a gun who had no garden. While I was a police officer, for example, a convicted felon gang member fired into my house from the sidewalk, not knowing I was a police officer. That was the first case I ever solved as a police officer– he was having a dispute with a rival Bloods gang member and mistook my house for his. No garden involved. Much more recently, a good friend of mine, and an outstanding police officer, was robbed then shot and killed by a convicted 3 time felon while he was off duty. I assure you he did not kill him because of a garden. And I have many many more experiences with shootings, none of which involved gardens, but DID involve convicted felons in possession of firearms.
On the other hand, there is a well-known case that took place in a nearby city, which is being litigated to this day. A narcotics officer and his team executed an improper search warrant on a house, and the home owner fired at the entering officers, thinking they were intruders, unfortunately killing the lead officer. The homeowner was then arrested…. this resulted in a gigantic legal mess which caused law enforcement all around to change their procedures.
Another case that took place in my department that unfortunately became notorious nationwide was when a canine officer shot and killed another officer because he mistook him for a suspect. They were of different races, which is what made it notorious.
I could go on and on.
But no, I can’t say I know first hand about any cases involving dug up gardens. Besides that, I now live on a farm, and am more concerned about coyotes killing chickens than gardens. And when I’m in cities, I’m much more cautious of convicted felon gang members who are usually denizens of bad neighborhoods, because I know they commit the bulk of the armed robberies and shootings. I know this from personal and professional experience.
Seems to me you’re going on a tangent, David, by taking the garden example too literally and restrictively. I hear of many cases of people being killed because of an argument over parking spaces, dog poop, rent, or who gets the dark meat of the Thanksgiving turkey. And I’m pretty certain that not all of the killers had criminal records.
Incorrect. “Taking the garden example too literally”? That is what the poster wrote, not me. This would be like attempting in court to argue that a defendant murdered a victim with a bat…. but after the defense shows that a bat was not used… the prosecutor stating “you took me too literally! I actually meant he was killed with a pistol… or sword…!” Sorry, but this sort of “shotgun statement” does not fly– you cannot testify to one thing, and then when what you said is found to be incorrect, change it to something else. First it’s gardening. Now you say it’s Turkey or rent. Which is it? What’s your next guess, tampons? Sorry, but that’s not how it works. If you’re going to make a statement and expect it to survive, you have to back it up with specific evidence. And as for your statements “I hear of cases…” and “I’m pretty sure..” Well, I’m pretty sure what a judge or jury, or the opposing attorney for that matter would say if you attempted to preface testimony with those kinds of phrases. Need specifics not hearsay or opinion.
Of course in a Court of law, one must be specific about what is charged i.e. Murder over an under cooked turkey or, a homicide set off by one’s neighbor digging up the attacker’s garden. But, using an example of one kind of murder resulting from a petty difference of opinion, or a minor transgression, can justifiably be used to point out that, many other murders or gun attacks result from similar petty conflicts.
When one is generalizing by attempting to use instances which come to mind off of the top of one’s head, and which resemble a similar type of conflict happening “over nothing,” I think it is permissible not to be required to prove that something exactly like it, actually did happen in reality.
In general, I too find it difficult to believe that shootings resulting from petty arguments and minor differences, are never perpetrated by people who don’t have a record of committing a felony, or other types of serious crimes, and, that these types of assaults are not common at all. It seems to me, that I have read many press reports concerning just such crimes! I can’t provide specific cases, but still feel that I have often read about them.
The fact is though, that we are not in a court of law, and are only expressing our opinions in an online forum.
“..When one is generalizing …” That’s just it. I don’t generalize. If you wish to prove your case, you must use specific evidence. If “generalizing” were acceptable, than anything and everything could be “proven”. A case is won or lost based on specific, provable information. If you can’t come up with any, then you have no case. “Generalizations” don’t cut it.
“I too find it difficult to believe that shootings resulting from petty arguments and minor differences…” Again, what you find difficult to believe is irrelevant. I have presented you with evidence. You have the ability to prove or disprove your ideas— with the Freedom of Information Act, you have the ability to access police reports and court records across the country. You don’t have to rely on “press reports” which are useless as evidence. You have the ability to access what the investigators themselves wrote about the cases, and what the results in court were. If you refuse to do this, and still hang on to ideas that are incorrect and devoid of supporting evidence, that is on you. But don’t try to claim to be fair minded or even educated about the issue.
“I have read many press reports concerning just such crimes! I can’t provide specific cases, but still feel that I have often read about them.” Again, “press reports” are meaningless and are not evidence– they are not written by people who are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and uphold the law, and are not admissible as evidence anywhere, not even in simple academic research. And “feeling” that you have done something is no evidence either.
This may not be a court of law, but in having a discussion with me, you must present evidence to back up your assertions. If you can’t, this is a waste of time and no more interesting than navel gazing.
Your admonishment concerning that specific instances are required in order to argue that a specific type of crime was committed may be necessary in a court of law if the scope of the example has only to do with, digging up the neighbors back yard, or shooting his cat (just another example) but the idea you were protesting was merely meant as a generalization to illustrate that petty crimes (plural) involving not just the exact, but also similar kinds of misunderstandings and/or conflicts exist.
How would you feel about a statement like, “plenty of conflicts involving gun crimes, represent moments of passion that involved using guns to settle petty disagreements.” I might come up with hypothetical types of crimes off of the top of my head just to bolster that statement, but whether these really happened or not, is irrelevant, since they only are meant to give a general idea about what kinds of petty crimes are being discussed. If you take the case to court that may not be sufficient, but in a discussion on a forum like this, I hope you can grant me the benefit of using generalizations to make a point, especially since no legal consequences can or will result.
I also take exception to your denial that press reports are reliable sources which can provide concrete examples of the kinds of offenses that are being discussed. Are you saying that, an attorney who said something like, “Examples of the kinds of crimes of passion that we are discussing are real and do exist, can be found in such and such issues of the New York Times, in such and such specific stories.” cannot use these journalistic accounts as solid evidence that plenty of gun crimes involve petty and unplanned conflicts and do really exist? In other words, are Crimes of passion that are committed by people with no previous criminal records not allowable to be mentioned?.” Remember that the original example of “digging up the back yard” was only intended as a possible example in the first place and the proof of stupid and petty crimes really being committed is the issue at stake in the first place!
I find myself becoming excessively “wordy” while trying to elaborate this point. But what it boils down to is that, You are indeed, being much too serious about an example that was meant only as a general example to bolster an over all point!
Perhaps such an argument would have to be made specifically in a Court of law (which this forum isn’t) but I would not want you to represent me, if it meant denying objective reporting from a periodical like the New York Times was not permissible as proof that specific crime which fit a general category, did indeed happen. Perhaps we should throw out the dictionary when used to define words with several different meanings since they are also not specific enough to be relied upon!
My point was that the garden example was merely one illustration out of many similar scenarios involving senseless gun violence, and you took it ran with it as if it were the only such scenario.
“My point was that the garden example was merely one illustration out of many similar scenarios involving senseless gun violence, and you took it ran with it as if it were the only such scenario.”
Sorry, but you (or whoever it was) handed me the “garden” thing on a silver platter. One basic rule of argumentation is that words are like bullets– once they’re let loose, they can’t be recalled. And can be used by the opposing attorney to hammer you. For example, if a witness in a murder court case states that he saw a suspect shoot a victim at exactly 4pm, and later it is found that the the suspect was at a party at 4pm, the witness cannot backtrack and say “oh, wait a minute, I actually meant 5pm! Sorry it was a mistake I was just generalizing.” On the contrary– the defense attorney will hammer the opposite side with it, and the case may very well have been lost because of such a statement.
By the same token, the “garden” hammer was handed to me, and I used it. Now, if your side says “oh wait a minute, we didn’t actually mean a garden… we actually meant a bottle of wine… or a boat… or a bird!” then your side comes across as very weak at best, and disingenuous and dishonest at worst.
The takeaway lesson is, if you’re going to make an argument and present what you purport to be evidence to back it up, it had better be accurate and true– because I watch specific words like a hawk, as would anyone who is out to win an argument or case. Once you fail at that, your side becomes weak and lacking in believability. Remember– specifics, specifics. If you are trying to win an argument, pretend that everything you say (or write) is being scrutinized and examined for weaknesses in order to attack it and impeach it. Every word is important. That’s how it works in court– every word uttered is “attackable”, so to speak. Winning or losing can hinge on a single word.
Again, you’re dancing around the real issue. All the shooting incidents mentioned actually occurred. And there are many others like them. The fact that you personally have not encountered any of them doesn’t change that.
“All the shooting incidents mentioned actually occurred.”
And I’m supposed to take your word for it, without proof? Sorry, that’s not how it works. You make an assertion, prove it– provide proof that such incidents took place. Acceptable proof are things like incident reports filled out by police which are public information, court transcripts, which are also public information, etc. All of these things are available to you.
“The fact that you personally have not encountered any of them doesn’t change that.”
And the fact that you state that pigs fly doesn’t make it so either.
Like I said, come back with proof.
What difference does it make whether you “take my word for it”? I have no interest in proving the reality to you. If you wanted to know about these incidents, you could look them up yourself — shouldn’t be too hard, as there was a shooting death over dog shit in the news only about a week ago. And am I supposed to just take your word that you’re experienced in law enforcement? You haven’t shown a shred a proof. Come back when you can contribute something of value to the discussion here. Your attacks and circular arguing are becoming a bore.
Mr. Vazquez might make an interesting subject for a future post. He’s used all the tactics I’ve seen others used when they get trapped in a corner: red herrings, moving goalposts, circular reasoning, gatekeeping, petulant hypocrisy…the list goes on. It’s especially ridiculous when you consider that he came here on his own. It’s not like you invaded his blog or whatever and picked a fight with him.
Mr. Vazquez,
You insist that among the only types of objective proof, Police reports can be considered examples,and then you deny the validity of newspaper stories. Are you saying that all police who fill out reports about incidents involving guns are beyond reproach and infallible witnesses?
Isn’t there always the possibility that a police officer who reports about an incident may be lying to cover up some unnecessary transgression of his own. If both he and a partner responded, isn’t it possible that his partner might also lie to get him off of the hook.
Let me suggest that, if you are looking for indisputable evidence, is it really fair to say that the police can be trusted to provide it, but not stories reported in major journals like the New York Times?
“Isn’t there always the possibility that a police officer who reports about an incident may be lying to cover up some unnecessary transgression of his own. If both he and a partner responded, isn’t it possible that his partner might also lie to get him off of the hook.”
There is always a “possibility”, but is highly unlikely. For several reasons. First of all, remember that a Police Report, nowadays, is accessible by literally ANYONE, digitally– from citizens who might happen to be perusing the internet and looking up cases, to other investigators/police officers around the country, to the officer’s colleagues, to reporters, to attorneys (both hostile and friendly to the police), etc. One of my duties as a rookie Detective (as it is with rookie Detectives throughout the country) was to pick up reams of police reports that had just been filed the day and night before by officers, review them, and investigate the crimes described there if appropriate. If I were to come across evidence that an officer lied on a report, I would have had to notify my own supervisor, and that officer’s reputation would be destroyed, because no investigator would want to take the time to investigate a case presented by an officer who is unable to be truthful. Furthermore, that officer would be, at minimum, suspended, pending further investigation. And if you think there is any incentive for me, a 40-something year old detective (at the time) with a wife and kids depending on me and my job to feed them, to cover up for or ignore untruths written by some 24 year old patrol officer who I’ve never met, and therefore put myself at risk to be fired and or imprisoned, you don’t understand the situation. As an example, while I was a patrol officer, I served with an extremely proactive young officer who often outstripped his peers in arrests made, in fact he was my partner on many occasions on the street. Everyone had high hopes for him, and I expected him to go far. Unfortunately, a year later, after I’d transferred to the Detective division, it was revealed that he didn’t lie, but simply embellished a single police report, and worse, attempted to encourage another officer to do the same. Not only was he immediately asked to resign, which he did, but shortly afterward he was arrested and charged with Making a False Police Report. Which is only a minor misdemeanor, but it was enough to ensure that he will never work as a policeman again, nor ever get any sort of classified clearance.
To repeat– police reports are accessible by EVERYONE AND ANYONE, which brings me to the second reason your statement is highly unlikely– if a police report involves a crime that is brought to court, as they often do, not only will attorneys and other officers see the report, THE JUDGE WILL. In other words, the officer who made the report will be testifying in court as to what took place, and believe you me, his report and testimony will be gone over with a fine-toothed comb by the judge and the defense attorney. In fact, the major part of the job of a defense attorney is to impeach the testimony of a witness, especially a police officer. And if that defense attorney even gets a whiff that a police officer is lying regarding his client, he will be ecstatic, because such a scenario will usually result in the client being found not guilty. And, worse for that officer, there is nothing a judge hates more than a lying officer. As another example, another officer I was familiar with testified in court regarding a case he was investigating. During his testimony, he made statements contradicting what he’d written in his own police report. The judge noticed it, and on the spot had that officer charged with Perjury, which is a felony. That was the last day of that officer’s career in law enforcement. (This is also why I am extremely careful about specific words I use in argumentation, and why I hold others to a high standard of specificity– this is the result of years and years of spending many hours every week testifying in courtrooms, knowing that even the slightest error in word-choice could not only cost the Commonwealth the case, but could also cost me my career or my freedom, and more importantly, cost someone else his freedom unfairly. This is why I don’t speak in “generalities”, nor tolerate those who do, in argumentation. I think this is a very good standard to have, and I wish more people had it.)
“Let me suggest that, if you are looking for indisputable evidence, is it really fair to say that the police can be trusted to provide it, but not stories reported in major journals like the New York Times?”
Yes, it is more than fair. For several reasons:
1)The testimony of police officers (including police reports) are accessible to all, including the press, and including defense attorneys, whose job it is to pick them apart and find flaws in them. This is because what is in a police report has the power of life and death, or freedom or imprisonment– meaning that what a police report contains could cause someone to go to prison. This is not the case with newspapers– no one is arrested, no warrants are signed by judges based on what newspaper articles say. No one comes to a judge and says “Newspaper X says that Mr Y molested 10 children. Therefore, kindly sign this warrant for his arrest”. Police officers do every day, based on their reports and testimony.
2)Writers of newspaper writers aren’t imprisoned for making mistakes in what they write (at best) or lying outright (at worst). Police officers are.
3)Newspaper writers don’t have to appear in court to testify to what they wrote. Police officers do, every single day. In other words, police officers are held accountable on a daily basis for what they write. Not so with writers, by a long shot. Newspaper writers don’t have to appear in court, so that those they accuse of crimes can face them. Police officers do, every day.
4)Newspaper articles are not written to the same standard that police reports and court testimony is. Court testimony (which police reports are a form of) MUST be concise, free of opinion, and must only consist of facts. In other words, must be 100% truthful. If they aren’t, the writer is going to jail. On the other hand, no newspaper writer is going to be imprisoned for not writing the truth. At worst, they will be suspended or fired. At best, they’ll be promoted, write books, and win the Pulitzer Prize… but that’s another topic.
Ask most any police officer, and they will tell you, that in the vast majority of the time, newspapers get the facts WRONG regarding cases being investigated, especially soon after they take place. Which means newspapers are printing falsehoods.
5)And I say this partially tongue-in-cheek– frankly, hardly anyone reads newspapers anymore, nor cares what’s in them. This is not 1936 or even 1975– people aren’t waiting with bated breath anymore for the Evening Edition to come out on the newstands so they can snatch them up and “read all about it”, like in some black and white James Cagney movie. I was going to say hardly anyone under 30, but I’m over 40 so I’ll say hardly anyone under 50 reads newspapers anymore. This is clearly shown by the plummeting subscription numbers for newspapers across the board, and many of their going out of business. This is the information age, and people get their information instantaneously from multiple reliable sources, and they no longer rely on “funnels” of screened information like newspapers. So, frankly, the age has long passed where most people consider newspapers to be sources of information that they use in their lives. A relevant example of this is that police reports and court records (including the outcome of cases) are posted and available online for all to see almost instantaneously. We no longer need to rely on a newspaper headline published the following morning to tell us that Citizen X was found guilty or innocent– we know it instantaneously online from the Court’s own website, often even before news anchors can announce it on the TV news. Why rely on a 3rd party to “report” things to you, when you can look the facts up yourself directly, at least with regards to topics of crime and law enforcement?
Mr. Vazquez,
First of all, I am glad you admitted that there is a chance police reports may be falsified in a small number of cases. But even with so many specific procedures and levels of reporting required by officers, this obviously does NOT guaranteed that that the absolute truth will be reported.
Like many other people, I still can see images of Rodney King, being beaten over and over while lying helpless on the ground! Still, the officers involved insisted that they were acting to make him comply and stop resisting. Apparently the slightest motion to get up was considered an aggressive threat. But the beating went on for several minutes, and Mr. King did not appear to be aggressive in any way–in fact he couldn’t have been after the first several dozens of blows I would guess!
Now, I am not saying that police officers always use excessive force, or that when they do, they might have actually believed it was necessary. I’m saying that at first, the officers were not aggressively prosecuted, and only received a small slap on the wrist. Although the case finally DID come to trial, because the circulation of the video stirred public outrage, it is still arguable if the officers involved received fair sentences for what they had done. Apparently, just like the political parties, the armed forces, and even the Catholic Church, the LAPD followed a “protect your own” instinct and deliberately downplayed the validity of the charge. So, although you are probably correct to report that the many checks and balances in the legal process make it very difficult for officers to lie or falsify reports, I still suspect that there have been quite a few cases of corruption and legal self-protection among policemen.
As for the the legal difficulty of prosecuting journalists who lie, I’m not so sure that they are as immune to legal charges as you may think.
I know that in the world of written journalism and spoken journalism in other media, there is this thing called slander and libel. And there have probably been quite a few cases when journalists have been accused of these crimes. I think that to be found guilty is quite a blemish on the reputation of the news outlets involved, and I also remember the famous case of Valarie plane (not certain of the exact name) where a reporter was prosecuted and served time in jail for refusing to reveal the source of her information. So, rightly or wrongly, this proves that journalists also are NOT above or beyond legal consequences.
We all know about the farce called Fox cable news where lies are not just aberrations but part of the creative (if delusional) process of reporting. But what do you think would happen to the New York Times, the Washington Post, or any other popular media outlet that was found consistently to err or lie in their reporting? I would guess that the negative publicity would not be desired by those who own and manage such periodicals and they would hold their journalists to a standard which is used to exclude such lies!
You claim that police reports are permanent and involve many levels of verification–probably very true–but how can you say that what is written in newspapers (or online) by those who report news stories–is not also a virtually permanent record of events? Many of the archives belonging to famous news outlets go back more than 100 years, and if something is contradictory in those reports comes out in the future, it would prove very easy to prove both what was said, and, who said it.
So, it may or may not be true that police must adhere to higher standards of truth telling than journalists, but certainly police officers are also quite capable of lying or embellishing the truth.
Fine if you want to prove specifically where a bullet hit a target, but irrelevant if you are simply trying to say that a bullet was, indeed fired. Your task in this discussion, is not to prove that any specific arguments involving guns and someone “digging up a yard” happened. Your task is to respond to the point that similar and petty arguments that DO involve guns Do happen over minor transgressions. That is the only point being contested!
“Your task in this discussion, is not to prove that any specific arguments involving guns and someone “digging up a yard” happened.”
A)Wrong. My “task” is to refute any statement that is not factual on its face. If someone, in discussion with me, makes a statement that is false, I will reject it. It is not my “task” to spoonfeed people who are on the opposite side of the argument intelligent, factual things to say to me. I’m not in the habit of doing others’ jobs for them.
B)You need to refrain from attempting to tell me what my “task” is. Or I will have to inform you that your “task” is to plant your lips on my derriere.
Mr. Vazquez,
Once again you are confusing this forum with some kind of legal entity and, if it were, then your task would indeed be to determine the absolute truth. But the comments about “digging up someone’s yard” was not intended to be a specific claim—only an example of certain types of gun crimes which happen over petty and superfluous issues.
“then your task would indeed be to determine the absolute truth.”
Exactly. In argumentation, I only deal in absolute truths. Not opinions. So when you make a statement to me, it must be backed up with evidence, in order to ascertain its literal truth. Opinions are worthless. Hypotheses based on actual evidence have value.
“But the comments about “digging up someone’s yard” was not intended to be a specific claim”
You’re contradicting yourself. The phrase “not intended to be a specific claim” means “it didn’t actually take place”. As I just wrote, I only deal with and address literal truths. i only address positions backed up by evidence. So if a person makes a statement that “is not intended to be a specific claim”, then that person is, in effect, presenting untruths. And therefore, that person’s value in a discussion drops to nil, because it causes everything that person writes from that moment on to be suspect, and untrustworthy.
Again, if you were testifying in court and you said something like “the defendant stole 1 million dollars from me”, and it is found that actually, the suspect only took $100,000, then it would cause everything you attempt to say from that moment onward to be untrustworthy, and you would no longer be of any value as a witness, and may in effect cause the case to be lost completely.
You keep saying “this isn’t a court entity”. Of course it isn’t. But that’s the standard that I argue by. I hold everyone who wishes to address me about topics like these to that same standard– namely, that anything anyone attempts to say to me, and present as a truth, MUST actually and literally be the truth, not opinion, and must be backed up by SPECIFIC evidence. In other words, I don’t tolerate statements like “well, I don’t know if X actually happened, but Y and Z are kinda and sorta like X, so we should pretend that X actually happened!” Or, “I don’t have any evidence that X actually happened, but you should still accept the spirit of my argument!” Or, “I read about X happening in the paper, so it must have actually happened!”
Sorry, but the moment you say something to me that is a falsehood, or at least is something you are unable to prove, and worse yet, something you admit to not being true but that you are attempting to use to further your argument, I will no longer respect you as a truthful person, and I will consider that anything you say after that point is a falsehood. That is the standard that witnesses are held to in courtrooms. (And the standard that academics are held to in presenting their research as well, incidentally). And it’s the same standard I use.
If you want to argue with a person with lesser standards, who is willing to let falsehoods slip by and still play the game, then you are arguing with the wrong person.
Sorry, to argue with me you must be on your “A game”, at all times. Because, as you’ve seen already, if someone attempts to present something as a fact that is not actually a fact, I will smack it down, to use a colloquialism. It’s what happens in court, and it’s what will happen here.
Mr. Vazquez,
Again, if this were an actual court of law I would have much more respect for your type of reasoning. But this is only a forum in which the participants are perfectly free to voice opinions about any topic they want–even if, strictly speaking, an opinion is not defined as a fact.
If we were, for example, discussing wealth in America, i might say something like, “a lot of Americans are millionaires.” That would be an opinion based on my experience and I would not have to prove exactly how many Americans “are” actually millionaires of how many millions they make, or what percentage of the population they represent for the purposes of this forum because, everyone in America knows that there are many millionaires in this country.
What you are doing is acting like every point of argument or contention in every discussion had, must be proven actually true, as lawyers would endeavor to do in a Court room. If we really were discussing facts in that context then I would indeed try to find specific examples of arguments stemming from ” fights over digging a hole in the neighbors back yard” to prove a specific point–especially if the outcome depended on that proof. But you are misunderstanding the vein in which such comments are made.
For the sake of voicing my OPINION I have every right to use a generalization like, “there are many millionaires in America.” The point is, we live in a country that is much better off materially than most other countries in the world, and I have in the past, glanced at issues of “Fortune 500,” for example, that make me confident this opinion is a valid one. Therefore, I feel comfortable making, and am not abandoning the spirit of effective debate, when I make a point about millionaires in America, because even without consulting the Bureau of Statistics or of the most recent Census figures, I just know that, many Americans ARE INDEED, MILLIONAIRES!
Whoever made the original comment about a gun being used during a fight caused, by someone digging a hole in someone else’s back yard, only meant it as a generic example of a petty argument that might only have been exacerbated by the presence of a such a weapon. It is sort of like saying that, “You will Never, understand me,” because, When I make that statement I don’t need to be observed by you or some authority for the rest of my life to validate using the word NEVER, or, after using the word NEVER, and then (hypothetically) being reincarnated again and again for as long as the universe and time itself exists. And by the way, you STILL DO NOT seem to understand the spirit behind such general statements like the ones we have been arguing about! So, let me just say, that, you will never understand me, and, rather than go on arguing this point forever, I will just respectfully disagree with you!
“But this is only a forum in which the participants are perfectly free to voice opinions about any topic they want–even if, strictly speaking, an opinion is not defined as a fact.”
I never wrote that I thought you were not “free” to voice your opinion. Your freedom to write your opinion is protected by the Constitution of the United States.
What I am saying is that I have no interest in opinions. I’m sure you’ve heard the saying that opinions are like anuses– everyone has one. I have equal amount of interest in opinions as I have in anuses.
There are people whose opinion on the use of firearms I respect– police officers (former or current, Federal, state or local), military (current or former), trained security officers or bodyguards or contractors, and other professions which require the expert use of firearms against humans, as well as possibly criminal attorneys and judges, and those who are otherwise trained with firearms and use them regularly, such as myself. I’m sure there are others, but those are the ones that come to mind at the moment. If you are a member of one of the above, I would love to hear your OPINION. If you’re not a member of one of those groups, your knowledge of firearms is suspect, but you would still be more than able to make valid points in a discussion with me, but they would have to be a presentation of FACTS, not your opinions. The opinion of someone who has no experience with the topic is useless and uninteresting to me, unless it is backed up by specific falsifiable evidence.
For example, if the discussion is about lion-taming, one would have no interest in the OPINION of someone who has no experience with lion taming, and has never even seen a lion, UNLESS that person backed up his statements with hard evidence– usually provided to him by those who ARE experts.
(Which is what some are attempting to do here– quoting data gathered by POLICE OFFICERS — the “statistics” so often quoted here, the origin of which could only be police officers themselves– but yet, police officer police reports are somehow suspect– UNLESS their reports support your theories? Calling that chain of thought illogical would be an understatement. I am dying to challenge someone on that– those who try to use “statistics” to try to prove X Y and Z, but forget that those “FBI statistics” are actually just data taken from millions of police reports from around the country. Someone who doesn’t believe police reports, and who feels police officers are untrustworthy, and who disregards the expert opinion of police officers, cannot possibly, in the same breath, use FBI statistics, which are nothing but aggregated data from millions of police reports written by local police officers and sent to the FBI, to try to prove their case. Those sorts of people are easy to defeat logically.)
That’s what makes the difference between useless, boring, time-wasting navel gazing, and useful, fruitful discussion. The former involves the trading of OPINIONS by those who don’t know what they’re talking about. The latter, by either experts in the field, or those with good specific evidence, or both.
I’m interested in the latter. Not the former.
I’ll give you a final example of how I feel during these discussions. Imagine you’re a trained astronomer or physicist, well-versed in your subject matter, having won awards, kudos, recognition from the community as well as your peers, for years and years. You sit down at the local Starbucks, and a local high school Freshman cheerleader, upon hearing that you’re an astronomer, starts making comments to you about how neat stars are, and if I think there are really space aliens, and how awesome black holes are and will they really eat you up and crush you, and asking if a “light year” is a unit of distance or time, and how she thinks the moon landing was faked. Other than thinking “that’s really cute, now run along!”, you aren’t going to attempt to engage that person in a useful discussion about astronomy. In other words, if you’ve ever watched the TV show “The Big Bang Theory”, I feel like Dr Sheldon Cooper, to your Penny, regarding the subject matter of crime and the use of firearms, instead of theoretical physics.
I hope that clears things up.
I had earlier typed a detailed rebuttal to one of your previous posts, but for some reason it disappeared, and was lost. I will have to reconstruct it later.
“Imagine you’re a trained astronomer or physicist, well-versed in your subject matter, having won awards, kudos, recognition from the community as well as your peers, for years and years. You sit down at the local Starbucks, and a local high school Freshman cheerleader, upon hearing that you’re an astronomer, starts making comments to you about how neat stars are, and if I think there are really space aliens, and how awesome black holes are and will they really eat you up and crush you, and asking if a “light year” is a unit of distance or time, and how she thinks the moon landing was faked. Other than thinking “that’s really cute, now run along!”, you aren’t going to attempt to engage that person in a useful discussion about astronomy.”
I’m a biochemist, not an astronomer, but indeed, yes, I WOULD engage her in a useful discussion about astronomy, because:
I would see it as an opportunity to educate her;
I also think stars are neat and black holes are awesome; and
I also wonder if there are “space aliens” (extraterrestrial lifeforms).
I also have an interest in debunking conspiracy theories that I know are wrong.
I guess that underscores the difference between us:
I like to engage people, to learn about them, tell them about me, find out what they think, and tell them what I think.
You appear to me to only be interested in proving other people wrong, browbeating them with your “expert” knowledge, and belittling them out of disrespect.
Mr. Vazquez,
The primary opinion that i and others have been expressing is that you are misunderstanding an earlier reference to “someone starting an argument about digging up someone else’a yard” We have tried to make you understand that it was just a general example of a petty type of argument that could possibly touch of a shooting. To have that opinion does not require anyone of us to have a degree in anything, and thank you, I am already aware that I have a right to express my opinion. All the logic in the world may be well and good when it is used to prove the correctness or error of a disputed fact, but this does not have to do with a disputed fact, it has to do with a general statement which was intended to provide an example a petty dispute–whether it literally happened or not, is irrelevant in the context of the discussion!
Now, I have never claimed to be an expert in anything, because I am not, but when I see an irrelevant argument I can recognize it as well as anyone else. I have great respect for the officers who deal with violent situations as part of their job, and may often have to jump through legal hoops in order to do that job correctly and well. I am not disputing that facts are indeed very relevant in a courtroom—But, are you presenting the idea that this forum is equivalent to a legal entity equivalent to a courtroom? If so, then argue on, but the fact is, IT ISN’T!
Questions of opinion are not necessarily involved with facts, but opinions are formed by an individual’s experience and observations. If I discussed “light years” with someone who knew much less about astronomy, I would have to assert whatever knowledge I had to correct that person, but it he or she, continued to required absolute proof about every remark I made, I would eventually loose interest and not be concerned that this person might not share my knowledge.
That is where I am concerning the thread of this post. You obviously don’t understand the point that I or others are making, therefore, I hope we can end this futile and circular argument.
In a previous post I pointed out that in one of your posts you implied that everyone living in government housing projects were drug users or of a criminal inclination. Excuse me for saying so, but that is merely your opinion, and one that would be in dispute depending what part of the country you live in, as well as the size of your community, its racial and ethnic makeup, and a host of other facts, but what you expressed is only an opinion—one that I disputed by sharing that, at times in my life, I have also lived with the help of government subsidized housing programs, and I am not a criminal, nor am I inclined to believe many other’s in my area who have also received this kind of government aid are criminals. So, may I suggest that you (as well as everyone else) are prone to form opinions based on your own subjective experience.
I would like to dispute the idea that this forum, in which we are all discussing issues concerned with gun laws—in relation to Hitler’s supposed attempt to take away German citizen’s guns–is not a courtroom. As evidence I would suggest that you open your eyes and look at the page that you are reading or typing right now! It will never be part of a court record, and will eventually be tossed into cyberspace when it is no longer captures reader’s interests.
Furthermore, none of us are under any oath, nor are we attempting to argue a legal case. I hope this endless and tiring discussion won’t go on forever!
I’ve been trying to stay out of this discussion, but I feel I must chime in by noting that I find Mr. Vasquez’s suggestion that police accounts are necessarily more reliable than journalist accounts to be quite questionable. I have extensive experience with both fields. I’ve worked in journalism myself, and while I’ve never been a police officer, I’ve worked many years in three different jobs that entailed frequent interaction with police. (In two of those jobs, the interaction was actually part of the job; in the other, I just came under frequent police scrutiny, because they often considered me a “suspicious” person.) More times than I can count, I encountered both ineptitude and blatant dishonesty among law enforcement personnel — which may not be (and I’m sure usually aren’t) sanctioned by the higher-ups, but they most assuredly do occur. I’ve also had a couple of civilian encounters with police that were absolutely surreal in the level of incompetence and corruption they revealed. I don’t consider such episodes to be the norm by any means;I respect and admire police in general. But there are enough incidents of this type to prevent me from idolizing police reports.
yes, I would tend to believe your experiences. Just like many other agencies or organizations, members of the police force may harbor specific prejudice against other organizations and be secretive about the ways they and their Superiors operate.
Another thing I wonder about is whether Mr. Vazquez’s accounts of the many layers and tiers of police responsibility which must be used in order to accurately report crimes such as shooting, may actually just represent many more intersections of authority which potentially might be involved in cover ups and distortions of events.
I do not know it the ‘digging in someone else’s yard’ example actually has happened or not, but in any case it typifies conflicts that happen involving petty disputes and gun aggression. In my own community, there are many newspaper stories which report on instances where someone was only threatened by a knife, let alone threatened with a gun. I would also guess that many periodicals are concerned with their journalistic reputations and require solid sources for their information.
I have been in many taverns where fights have basically started because “someone doesn’t like the way another person looks.” This is may be an unproven cliche, but I have no doubt that many bar fights have started over petty conflicts. And, I don’t think a specific statement from someone who said, “I punched him because I didn’t like the way he looked,” is that easy to find. Never-the-less I find the general type of petty reasoning involved, very believable and quite possible. heaven help us if anyone can someday carry a loaded weapon in a tavern–would that be a nightmare scenario or what? But then, I suppose Mr. Vazquez, wouldn’t respect me for even entertaining such a thought!
Objection noted, but overruled. 😉 I find it difficult to believe that you could have the kind of career you claimed and yet you NEVER experienced or heard of a case in which a neighbor shot another neighbor over some petty dispute, without either of them being felons or any other criminal act being involved.
In the past year alone, I’ve read or heard of at least a dozen such incidents occurring around the country. One assailant even invoked a stand your ground law, and I’m not talking about the Trayvon Martin case. If I remember correctly, the dispute was over a burrowed video camera.
Putting myself in the mind of a juror, I would find your testimony impossible to believe. Hence my attempt to refute your objection before you made it.
But this is nothing more than a red herring to avoid my primary point, namely the obsession people can have with guns, and their “Constitutional” justification for wanting to arm themselves with military grade weapons.
As a former marine and policeman, what are your thoughts on that?
“Objection noted, but overruled.” You are not the judge in this case, you are someone who is attempting to convince others of your point of view. To follow the analogy you are an opposing attorney who is attempting to put your case forward, you are presenting it to the public, or to me, or to anyone who you are trying to convince.
“I find it difficult to believe that you could have the kind of career you claimed and yet you NEVER experienced or heard of a case in which a neighbor shot another neighbor over some petty dispute, without either of them being felons or any other criminal act being involved.”
What you find difficult to believe is irrelevant– if you have an objection to something I’ve written, in order to refute it, you must present evidence of some kind to do so. And sorry, but “I don’t believe you” is not effective evidence of any kind.
Allow me to use another analogy here. You apparently base your knowledge of law enforcement and crime on what you “read or hear” (Read where? Hear from whom?), rather than on experience, or from speaking directly to those with experience. (Which is what I am attempting to impart to you– knowledge about the subject from someone who actually knows what he’s talking about). An analogy would be someone who has based all of their knowledge on paleontology and evolution on what they’ve seen on TV, or read in the Bible, etc. And then, that person, upon being told by actual scientists and paleontologists that dinosaurs and cavemen lived tens of millions of years apart in time, responds “I find that difficult to believe! After all, on all the TV shows I’ve seen and all the Bible stories I’ve read, dinosaurs and humans lived and frolicked together!” Well sorry, but what you’ve “heard”, or what you want to believe, may not be true, to any significant level.
And no, I have never investigated, nor known a case to have been investigated, in my city or even my region of my state, where “a neighbor shot another neighbor over some petty dispute, without either of them being felons or any other criminal act being involved.” Except for some VERY unusual cases, every shooting case I investigated involved 2 or more of the following: 1) Residents of what is known as “projects”, otherwise known as “Section 8”, or “city-funded” housing, 80% of whom are convicted criminals of one kind or another– which is exactly why they are IN government-funded housing to begin with, or 2) Are intoxicated and/or on narcotics of one kind or another– which is in and of itself a violation of their probation, which most of them are on, due to having been convicted of some previous offense (and most Section 8 dwellers are on one kind of probation or another), or 3)In the process of selling or buying narcotics, or attempting to rob a dealer of his wares or money or vice versa, or 4)Are gang members of one stripe or another (in my city is was almost completely East-Coast Bloods and Crips and variations of those) or 5)The suspect was in the process of robbing a completely innocent person (or mostly innocent … such as possibly another gang member, or erstwhile partner in crime etc) and shot the victim in the course of the robbery or 6) One jealous partner/husband shooting the other, usually after there was a restraining order against the offender (or even the victim), but again, I did not deal with a single case where this scenario did not involve individuals who had already been arrested previously in their lives (for anything from drunk in public to narcotics offenses, etc). In other words, there were no cases, that I was aware of, where someone, at age 30 or 40 or 50, who was a fine upstanding productive citizen, with no experience whatsoever with criminality, just suddenly up and shot someone. Sorry, it just doesn’t happen in any significant numbers. To put it another way, for every case you might be able to present, I can present, LITERALLY, 3,000 cases that involved the above-described individuals. Also remember– the great majority of shootings (meaning 75% and up) do NOT result in death. In other words, for every 4 shootings, 3 do NOT result in death, and therefore get very little press coverage.
Which leads me to my next point– you repeatedly mention “hearing” or “reading” about cases. If you are going to present them as evidence, you must cite not newspaper articles or TV programs where these things might have been discussed, because as every policeman will tell you who has worked for more than a week– the press usually gets most of the story wrong, especially initially. Also, newspaper stories or TV news shows cannot be presented in any court as evidence– you would need to present the actual policemen involved in investigating the case as witnesses, or, what are known as IBR’s (Incident Based Reports) that were filled out by the officers investigating the case, and which are available to all– they are public information available to all. Or, if the cases have already been adjudicated, you could present actual court records of what took place in court regarding the case, including the defendant’s CONVICTION– remember, charges and warrants issued by police/judges, and incident reports, are not the final word on a case– the conviction (or dismissal of charges) are. in other words “I heard about a case on Oprah last week” is not acceptable, while “here is a transcript of the trial of the man who killed his neighbor over spoiled sushi, and was convicted for it” WOULD be acceptable.
So, as a former marine and police officer, you have nothing to say about people being so obsessed with guns that they wish to own military ordinance?
By the way, this is not a court of law; it’s a blog. And it’s not your blog; you do not get to set the rules of discussion.
But as a final word on your court analogy, if I were a juror, I would naturally use what I already know to help me judge whether you are a credible witness. And since you say things that are contradicted by that knowledge and experience, I would judge you to have very little credibility.
You can of course dismiss my knowledge and experience as being relevant, but as you said, “I don’t believe you” is not a credible response.
Please address the main point above.
“By the way, this is not a court of law; it’s a blog. And it’s not your blog; you do not get to set the rules of discussion.”
In order to have a meaningful discussion, you must obey the rules of evidence– if you make a statement, you must be able to back it up with facts. Not personal opinion. So far, you have failed to present any falsifiable evidence to prove your case. And yes, if you wish to discuss anything with me, you must follow my rules– simple rules of evidence. Very simple– you make a statement, back it up with facts. You have not done this.
“..I would naturally use what I already know to help me judge whether you are a credible witness. And since you say things that are contradicted by that knowledge and experience,..”
Again I ask– WHAT knowledge and experience? Knowledge of what? Knowledge from what exactly? What experience? What experience do you have? How long have you served as a police officer, or a judge, or academic who studies these subjects? I have already stated my own experience and knowledge– it is based on firm, real, actual, experience. What is yours based on? Again, simply state what your “knowledge and experience” is. As long as that “knowledge and experience” isn’t “what I read in newspapers and see on TV”, then perhaps you have something to go on. If not, your argument is weak to the point of failing miserably. Sorry, but in court, “the suspect is guilty because the newspapers say he is” isn’t acceptable. You need to present evidence. Very simple concept.
“So, as a former marine and police officer, you have nothing to say about people being so obsessed with guns that they wish to own military ordinance?…Please address the main point above.”
Let me get this straight. You just implied that I have no credibility. You have just implied that I am a liar. But now you want my opinion on something? An analogy would be an attorney who has just accused a police officer or witness of being a liar, of having no credibility or believability– in other words, of committing perjury…. but then wanting his testimony on something that requires absolute credibility and believability. “Yes, you are a liar and I don’t believe what you say… but tell the court what time evidence shows the victim was killed… give us some sworn testimony.”
Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. If you feel a witness has no credibility and has perjured himself, that witness and everything he says becomes useless in court– because any and all of his testimony is then suspect and worthless.
If you want my opinion on something meaningful, you must play by the rules. If you don’t feel I can be believed, it would be ludicrous to ask my opinion on anything.
Yes, yes, I understand you’re playing a game to avoid the real issue.
Let’s take a step back for a moment. You criticized the validity of the term “gun addict”, suggesting that people own guns, not because they need to satisfy a psychological need to feel safe, but to make them safe from real physical dangers.
I responded by pointing out that there are people who are so obsessed with guns that they believe they have an inalienable Constitutional right to own military ordinance without restriction, and I backed that up with evidence, an actual statement by one such person. I also pointed out that these people believe they must own such weapons so they can overthrow the government if it turns tyrannical.
You claim to be a former marine and police officer (a claim you have not supported with evidence despite your demands that everyone else abide by your rules). Assuming that is true (and I am willing to take it on faith for the sake of the discussion), what is your opinion about such people?
Do you agree with them?
Do you believe they need military hardware to be safe from the real physical danger of government tyranny?
Or do you believe they are being paranoid, or are using it as an excuse to feed an obsession for guns?
If the latter, how is that different from the psychological need to feel safe associated with gun addiction?
Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
You already implied that I am a liar and untrustworthy. How could you possibly want someone’s opinion when you cannot trust them? If I think someone is a liar, I wouldn’t want their opinion on anything, because it would be suspect and worthless.
If you want to continue this conversation with me, then you must accept what I have stated as true and trustworthy. Then I’d be glad to share my opinion with you about what you’re asking. But sorry, you’ve insulted me by implying that I’m a liar, and I don’t have much incentive to make conversation with rude and disrespectful people. I don’t know where you’re from or how you were raised, but I for one don’t call someone a liar, and then attempt to make pleasant conversation with them. That would be either rude or crazy.
And I don’t take anything “on faith”– who served in the military (I served in the Marine Corps and Army) and when, as well as in local law enforcement, is public information and available to anyone who cares to seek it out. I don’t expect anyone to take anything “on faith”. If you want proof, I’d be glad to provide you with my full name so you can look it up yourself. I don’t hide behind anonymity.
Sorry, but as I said before, this is not your blog; you do not get to set the rules. All you can do is choose whether to respond.
For the record, I did not imply you were a liar; that’s just an excuse you’re using to avoid the real issue.
I will say, that in my opinion, your refusal to address the specific issue I raised suggests that you either sympathize with those people but don’t want to admit it, or you now realize your criticism of “gun addict” is untenable and you do not wish to admit that.
You will deny it, but I’ve seen this kind of evasive behavior too many times over the past thirty years not to recognize it for what it is.
Your choice: discuss the issue or post more nonsense about how we have to believe every word you say and we must obey your rules before you’ll even deign to speak with us. If you choose the latter I will not respond, but I will point out, you posted here; no one forced you to do it. It’s rather rude and insulting to then refuse to enter into a discussion you initiated simply because no one will play the game your way.
Now you’re behaving like what is colloquially known as a dickhead.
You certainly did imply that I am a liar. You wrote that you “found it hard to believe” what I wrote. If that isn’t the definition of implying someone is a liar, I don’t know what is. Next time you see your wife or husband, tell him or her that you “find it hard to believe” that he or she isn’t sleeping with someone else. Then see what happens.
And now you’re accusing ME of being “evasive”?? What rot. These aren’t “my rules”, this is simply the rules of civilized human behavior. You don’t get to call someone a liar, and then go on and talk to them like nothing happened. That doesn’t happen in real life, and it doesn’t happen here.
If you apologize to me, you’ll get my opinion all day long. This is about YOU, and YOUR rude behavior, not my writing or not writing my opinion– if anyone else were to ask me my opinion right now, I’d be glad to give it. I’d love to discuss the issue at hand all day long. But regarding you, specifically, you need to apologize if you want my opinion and/or to converse with you, on any topic. That’s how police conversation works.
Sorry, but just because I’m not sharing my opinion with you specifically doesn’t mean I’m being “evasive”. Anyone else is free to ask my opinion on the subject. I am deliberately not addressing ANYTHING you ask of me, whether it’s about sports trivia, cats, or anything else.
Hell even I catch the news about stupid shootings.
http://www.wkbw.com/news/have-you-seen-this/Man-Shoots-and-Kills-Neighbor-Couple-Over-Dog-Feces-Dispute-Police-Say-189850661.html
http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2009/aug/24/keller-man-shoots-neighbor-fight-over-dog-bullet-a/
http://chicagoist.com/2010/05/13/man_shoots_neighbor_over_puppy_peei.php
http://gizmodo.com/5980125/man-shot-dead-after-gps-error-leads-him-to-wrong-house
All unnecessary shootings.
Mr. Vazquez,
In the last 2 years there have ben a spate of murders where I live. They were highly publicized because murder is so unusual in southern VT. You are free to look up police reports for Brattleboro and see whether I am lying or not.
A man walked into the co-op and shot his supervisor for a bad performance review. A man shot a neighbor for complaining about his son hot-rodding in his car and making too much noise. A man shot his son’s girlfriend over some domestic dispute witht he two of them ( i don’t think he approved of her, which may be a good reason for shooting someone, who am I to judge). and finally a woman was kidnapped and shot and killed related to some sort of drug and prostituion ring.
In none of the first three cases was there any mention of the killers being felons. They were widely covered and talked about in town, and I am pretty sure that detail would have emerged. I am not even sure that the drug related one was carried out by a felon. You are welcome to point out if that is not the case
So my personal experience over the last couple of years in the area I live completely contradicts your contention that these kinds of crimes of passion rarely happen, and I would be surprised if the emotional stability of people who owns guns in other parts of the country is so dramatically different that these types of killings don’t happen in other places. You have not responded to the factual references that have been made regarding this issue that others have posted here. Nor, moreover, have you provided factual evidence to back your claim that almost all gun murders are purpetrated by felons.
I will however grant you the point that the number of garden related homicides is almost surely miniscule and that anyone attampting legislation regarding a correlation between gun violence and gardening is wasting the publics time. It is good to finally have someone clear up this widespread myth.
I also grant you the crown for the most ad hominem attacks in this thread.
Personally I have never had a gun, and have had loaded guns pointed at me twice. In neither case was I, nor the person pointing the gun at me, a felon. In both cases I could have been killed by accident, as in neither case was there a good cause for having the gun pointed at me.
I have NEVER had a gun pointed at me when I am in the company of people who do not have guns.
I just recently had a long discussion with an Iraqi special forces Veteran. he was of the exactly oppostie opinion of yours, and contended, from his experience that hardly anyone knows how to handle a gun responsible and he fully supports universal registration, and licensing for guns. My cousin is a detective in Denver, and apparently in Denver, just like in VT, there are also numeorus cases of murders where non felons were involved in domestic altercations resulting in gun deaths.
Of course you are free to provide the evidence to the contrary. Being as I have known my cousin for over 50 years and he has never knowingly lied to me, I would be very upset with him for doing so over this issue. Especially being the only republican in my family he would tarnish that already dark image amongst his relatives.
David,
your earlier psot today was quite hysterica. I am starting to wonder at your age. People on the internet often present themselves to be someone they are not.
I would wonder if you could provide some way of being sure you are not some precocious 13 year old pretending to be a former cop and military.
the idea that you are “smacking down” arguments on this thread is highly amusing. What you are doing is nit picking, arguing about meaningless things and making unsupported assertions that we are supposed to take on faith becuase you claim they are your experience.
I have presented you with checkable facts that contradict your claims. Others have presented information that also contradicts your asserted facts, yet you have yet to provide any checkable “facts” and you have the balls to say you are “smacking down falsehoods”
not only is your logic twisted, but your intention appears to be anything but looking for the truth.
if you are actually interested in valuable dialogue that increases understanding of facts and issues, I am certainly interested in your views. But if you are trying to impress anyone here with your intellignece and sophistication and your razor sharp adherence to logic, I think you had better rethink your approach.
“People on the internet often present themselves to be someone they are not.”
Agreed. Such as, perhaps, people attempting to claim that they know anything about law enforcement, firearms, and their use..?
“What you are doing is nit picking, arguing about meaningless things”
I’m sorry, but I feel that your term “nit picking” actually means “things which I cannot refute”.
“making unsupported assertions”
Which assertions would those be? Name them.
“I have presented you with checkable facts”
Which “facts” would those be? And remember, it is not my job to “check” your facts. If you’re going to present a “fact”, you must state exactly where you got that “fact”, and it has to come from a reliable source, which you must cite. You have failed to do this. Haven’t you ever written a paper in college? Didn’t you have to provide footnotes and citations? Same goes here. A basic rule of argumentation is that if you attempt to present evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU, not your audience. A fact may be “checkable” to you, so YOU need to do the checking and presenting of the evidence, not me. And like I said, a good citation is not “I saw it on the evening news” or “I seem to remember my pappy telling me about it years ago” or “I read it in the paper”.
“yet you have yet to provide any checkable “facts”..”
That’s because I have not yet attempted to put forth a hypothesis of any kind. I’ve been too busy challenging and refuting the statements of people who have no idea what they’re talking about. As soon as I put forth a hypothesis, I’ll let you know. But I can guarantee you my facts won’t be “checkable”, they will be stated in such a way that you will know exactly where they came from.
“not only is your logic twisted” Again, “twisted” sounds too much to me like “you’re saying stuff I can’t refute so I’m going to call it twisted!” If you’re going to call my logic “twisted”, you’ll need to show exactly where it’s “twisted”, and you’ll need to define “twisted”, to boot.
“if you are actually interested in valuable dialogue that increases understanding of facts and issues, I am certainly interested in your views. ”
A)I’m not interested in “dialogue” with those who don’t know what they’re talking about. In order to have “dialogue”, both parties have to be educated about the subject matter. If one party is far beyond the other in knowledge of it, the communication would have to take an instructional tone which is not interesting to me because if I’m going to be educating people at length on the subject matter, I’d rather be getting paid for it rather than wasting time online.
B)I am glad to impart my knowledge of the subject matter (note that I said knowledge, not opinion) to you or anyone who wishes to read it. But that does not mean that I will place the opinions of those who don’t know what they’re talking about on the same plane as my own knowledge of the subject matter.
C)As I wrote in a response to someone else, “views” and opinions are not interesting to me (unless you are an expert in the subject matter), because everyone has one. What very few people have is KNOWLEDGE and facts. If you have these, I would love to hear about them. But if one of your statements, in which you purport to bring forward “facts” begins with “I think..” or “Probably..” or “I heard..” or “I’m pretty sure..”, I’m not interested. I’m sure you can respect that.
“But if you are trying to impress anyone here with your intellignece and sophistication and your razor sharp adherence to logic, I think you had better rethink your approach.”
Why, because I adhere to logic while you don’t? I’m not here to impress anyone. I am here to read your logical, reasoned statements backed up by evidence. Let me know when you are ready to begin presenting them.
“I would wonder if you could provide some way of being sure you are not some precocious 13 year old pretending to be a former cop and military.”
You make a rude statement like that, and then you expect to be taken seriously by me? The term “sore loser” comes to mind.
Anyway, I use my real name, and military service records, at least the basics, are available to all online. I’d be happy to provide you with the links, if you would like. Also, I’d be happy to provide you with whatever proof is available online regarding my law enforcement experience, if you feel you must have it.
“…it is not my job to “check” your facts. If you’re going to present a “fact”, you must state exactly where you got that “fact”, and it has to come from a reliable source, which you must cite. You have failed to do this. Haven’t you ever written a paper in college? Didn’t you have to provide footnotes and citations? Same goes here. A basic rule of argumentation is that if you attempt to present evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU, not your audience. A fact may be “checkable” to you, so YOU need to do the checking and presenting of the evidence, not me. And like I said, a good citation is not “I saw it on the evening news” or “I seem to remember my pappy telling me about it years ago” or “I read it in the paper”.”
That’s interesting, because you didn’t provide any facts that demonstrated you were really an ex-marine or an ex-policeman. You just expected us to take your word for it. And when I expressed skepticism, you told me to look it up myself. As you say, it is not my job to check your facts.
“Anyway, I use my real name, and military service records, at least the basics, are available to all online. I’d be happy to provide you with the links, if you would like. Also, I’d be happy to provide you with whatever proof is available online regarding my law enforcement experience, if you feel you must have it.”
That would be a start, but we would also need proof that YOU are really the David Vazquez the links speak of.
Normally we would take you at your word, but considering your behavior, some cautious skepticism seems prudent.
link building service,
I also admire the POPs use of sound reasoning and reliable research. But I hope I can make a request of him here;
I have heard many arguments that the misnomer, “assault weapons” was deliberately manufactured by politicians and journalists who were attempting to make the products of gun manufacturers sound more scary and dangerous than they actually are. I have also visited several websites which refute this notion with observations that gun magazines like “Guns and Ammo” ran adds during the beginning and middle 1980s that contain cover ads for assault pistols and assault weapons. And, sure enough I have found several articles that not only affirm the claim that the industry itself created the term “assault” weapons, but ones that also contain photographs clearly showing the covers of “Guns and Ammo”, from the early to mid 1980s that contain such advertisements.
This is significant because usually gun advocates and the NRA list the name of Josh Sugarmann, a journalist who later founded the Violence Policy Center, as the one who first used the term “assault weapon,” journalistically, in an effort to make semi-automatic weapons sound menacing. However, it makes sense to me that the gun industry actually created this term, along with making semi-automatics closely resembling fully automatic military style weapons, in order to make their products more appealing to buyers who would enjoy their bad-ass appearance. In any case, the mere fact that gun manufacturers have made these guns very similar in appearance to more dangerous weapons, surely casts suspicion about their motives for doing so. And Mr. Sugarmann’s use of the misnomer allegedly happened in 1988–several years after its was used by “Guns and Ammo.” So, even if journalists and/or politicians had used the term earlier (in error) that doesn’t let the gun industry off of the hook since it appears well documented that they also, did indeed, use the term many years ago. So, why should they complain about its use now to describe semi-automatics in question if they have also used the term “assault weapons,” many years ago?
In any case, I think it would be great if the POP carefully researched this issue for readers to enjoy. If he has already done so, I have missed it, and I apologize for overlooking it.
No, I haven’t covered that yet. But I certainly have noticed that the gun lobby contradicts itself frequently in its assault on “gun control”, and I’m planning a blog on that topic. Maybe I can work this in, Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
A recent illustration: the internet gun store Proguns.com calls AR 15 “assault rifle”.
“Welcome to ProGuns.com, Your Online Store for AR 15 Assault Rifles, AK 47’s, Handguns, Rifles, Shotguns, Used Guns & More! New AR 15s in Stock
Proguns.com offers a wide selection of guns for sale, including shot guns, hand guns, rifles, AK 47’s, AR 15 assault rifles from such manufactures as Bushmaster AR15, and Stag Arms, custom guns, and used guns. Along with our selection of AR 15s and other assault and sporting rifles,”
Sylvie Kenig Dessau,
One thing is also for certain–journalists and politicians who favored tighter gun regulations, had no say, or authority, to make gun manufacturers create weapons which are very similar in style to weapons that are capable of fully automatic fire. This happened entirely because of them, and, can only be explained as their desire to make their products more marketable and attractive to potential customers!
Mr. Vazquez,
After railing against the error of making assumptions or using opinions in many of your previous posts, in one of them you advance the “opinion” that people who live in projects usually have criminal records and I believe you also typified them as drug users. Your statement includes the phrase (perhaps not an exact quote)
“That’s why they live in projects in the first place!”
I have, at time lived in government housing and have had my rent subsidized by the government to make it more aligned with my ability to pay. However, the only criminal offense I have ever had, is driving 66 mph in a 55 mile zone, and that happened many years ago.
Although I have experimented with drugs, as so many people of my age once did, I have never been a drug addict and have never committed a crime while drunk. So, what do you think your “opinion,” generalizing about people who live in government housing or projects, is?–a statement of absolute fact, which applies to all of them, or is it rather a biased opinion based on your own perceptions?
As you are also fond of saying, just because someone has a difficult time believing an observation, does not matter–only the facts do! But your personal experience cannot be applied to all renters in government housing, and it is not a fact—at least in that it absolutely CANNOT be used, to pigeonhole or stereotype any of the individuals who reside in government subsidized apartments!
Please come down from your soap box long enough to realize that not everything said in these posts requires being legally sifted over and over to infinity just to be valid. If you were not prone to such perfectionist standards then you might realize that a statement about a gun fight happening over a petty issue LIKE someone “digging up someone else’s yard,” is perfectly valid, and does not need to be picked apart by Perry Mason, in order to be brought up in discussion!
Mr Vazquez,
When someone says they find it “hard to believe that you’re not lying,” that is not the same as accusing you of being one, only that the respondent finds it difficult to believe what you said.
You seem to totally misunderstand the intentions behind many comments, and instead want to split hairs over irrelevant statements.
Yes, they possibly would be relavent in a court of law, but get over commenting as if this forum is really were a court of law! Time out please!
Greetings Mr. Johnson:
I should point out that I did not say I found it hard to believe Mr. Vazquez wasn’t lying. Rather, what I said was that I found his claim of never encountering a neighborhood shooting over a petty argument without anyone being a felon or there being alcohol or drugs involved difficult to believe.
Despite his claim that the legal rules of evidence are the only rules permissible in a civilized rational discussion, there are other rules that can apply. For example, as a former scientist, I followed a rather different set of rules for evidence.
To begin with, scientists consider any form of witness testimony, expert or otherwise, anecdotal, or as they would say in the legal profession, hearsay. Anecdotal evidence is not considered proper evidence in science; that is, a scientist can be a Nobel Prize recipient, but just because he says something is true doesn’t mean it is.
Skepticism is also important in science: all claims must be backed by solid experimental or observational evidence. If a scientist says, “The moon is made of green cheese!”, other scientists have the right to say, “We find that hard to believe”, until the scientist making the claim presents his evidence. Even then, the evidence can be questioned if it appears less than solid.
The point is that telling another scientist you find his claim difficult to believe is NOT the same as saying he is a liar. Though fraud has occurred in science, the vast majority of incidents involving wrong claims occur because of error. In other words, scientists make mistakes, like other people, and sometimes those mistakes lead them to make erroneous claims.
I am willing to give Mr. Vazquez the benefit of the doubt and assume he is not lying. Instead, I believe he is mistaken. Instead of deliberate deception, I believe he has allowed his personal prejudices and ideology to filter his memory, so that he forgets the cases the contradict his thesis and remembers those that confirm it. There is also the problem of bias brought about by the nature of his profession. Naturally, most cases he would see involve felons and overt criminal acts, but that selection bias doesn’t prove that other circumstances could create cases he didn’t tend to see.
In any event, if he’s guilty of anything, it’s an error in judgment brought on by depending too much on his subjective ideology to interpret reality, instead of relying on rational thought and objective facts.
Biochemborg,
The statement I made concerning Mr. Vazquez’s claim that you accused him of lying, comes directly from a comment he made in a post he made on March 5th, 2013, at 4:02 pm and it can be found in his reply several times up form this post. He said, when responding to you,and I quote, that you said, you “found it hard to believe what I wrote” and in nearly the same place, in the same comment, he clearly accuses you of “implying” that he lied.
If you were actually not the person these remarks were addressed to, then I apologize for thinking that you were, but all I said about the issue, was that, finding it hard to believe what someone says, or writes, is NOT an automatic accusation that this person lied! I am a little puzzled by your post, since I pointed out this difference in order to negate what Mr. Vazquez claimed was had said.
I also respect the scientific method and consider the information uncovered by scientists to be very accurate and respectable. And, I also recognize that legal testimony does not always speak for a larger group of facts, but only for what the person who testifies, “believes” are the facts.
The whole conflict started when Mr. Vazquez insisted on absolute accuracy involving the discussions made on this forum, as if they were made in some king of legal atmosphere. And, as such, I believe he is completely missing an important point about the occurrence of many gun crimes that happen in moments of
passion, and/or by people who, up to then, had no criminal records to speak of!
Mr. Johnson:
My apologies for the obscurity of my response. I meant no criticism on your part; in fact, I wrote mostly to compliment what your had written.
I just didn’t want the discussion to assume that I had actually used the words “lie” or “liar” or “lying”.
Thank you.
Jeff,
During the civil rights era in the 60s it may surprise you that many white people also saw the fairness of treating every race the same.
It is true that people of your bent, may have had to be forced to comply, but I would hardly say that the Jews in concentration camps went of their own free will either. Rather, people with similar ideas to your own were the ones that FORCED six million of them to be executed because of an anti-Semitic ideology.
Although President Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy, who was the US attorney general at the time, may have been forced to take extreme actions to protect freedom riders from thugs who beat them over essentially nothing, both the President and his brother did NOT have to be persuaded to believe in racial equality.
But then again, I don’t expect you to agree with or understand any thing I say! However, your first amendment rights give you the freedom to spew your own hateful ideology, just as Dr. King’s 1st amendment rights, supported his statements about love and solidarity among the many different races who agreed with him.
Too bad you are not patriotic enough to understand this!
Mr. Vazquez,
Here is a paste of a comment you made in your post on March 5th, 2013 at 1:41 AM.
“And no, I have never investigated, nor known a case to have been investigated, in my city or even my region of my state, where “a neighbor shot another neighbor over some petty dispute, without either of them being felons or any other criminal act being involved.” Except for some VERY unusual cases, every shooting case I investigated involved 2 or more of the following: 1) Residents of what is known as “projects”, otherwise known as “Section 8″, or “city-funded” housing, 80% of whom are convicted criminals of one kind or another– which is exactly why they are IN government-funded housing to begin with, or 2) Are intoxicated and/or on narcotics of one kind or another– which is in and of itself a violation of their probation, which most of them are on, due to having been convicted of some previous offense (and most Section 8 dwellers are on one kind of probation or another), or 3)In the process of selling or buying narcotics, or attempting to rob a dealer of his wares or money or vice versa, or 4)Are gang members of one stripe or another (in my city is was almost completely East-Coast Bloods and Crips and variations of those) or 5)The suspect was in the process of robbing a completely innocent person (or mostly innocent … such as possibly another gang member, or erstwhile partner in crime etc) and shot the victim in the course of the robbery or 6) One jealous partner/husband shooting the other, usually after there was a restraining order against the offender (or even the victim), but again, I did not deal with a single case where this scenario did not involve individuals who had already been arrested previously in their lives (for anything from drunk in public to narcotics offenses, etc). In other words, there were no cases, that I was aware of, where someone, at age 30 or 40 or 50, who was a fine upstanding productive citizen, with no experience whatsoever with criminality, just suddenly up and shot someone. Sorry, it just doesn’t happen in any significant numbers. To put it another way, for every case you might be able to present, I can present, LITERALLY, 3,000 cases that involved the above-described individuals. Also remember– the great majority of shootings (meaning 75% and up) do NOT result in death. In other words, for every 4 shootings, 3 do NOT result in death, and therefore get very little press coverage.”
In the above statement you DO also express many OPINIONS which are not established fact. As I tried to say in one of my previous posts, I also have spent some of my life living in government subsidized housing or “projects.” But,your claim that exactly 80% of them are convicted criminals is not true. Even assuming you are correct about your own area, you are not accurate when failing to include the entire nation, when referring to the many people in government section 8, housing around the country–a federal program! Any accurate statement about the entire program must therefore, involve the entire nation! You also state, “which is why they are IN government funded housing to begin with!” Both of these statement are not facts, and are only your opinion about what you have seen! Furthermore, when you toss around a figure like 80% you had better be specific about what area you are referring to. In my area, most people on section 8 or subsidized housing assistance, are not living in Apartments because they are convicted criminals–they live there because they are poor, and it certainly does not follow that all poor people have criminal records. And when you say something like, “this is the reason they are IN government funded housing in the first place, this statement suggests that section 8 and other subsidized housing, exist only to house criminals–or that every ex-con MUST ONLY live in Section 8 subsidized housing.WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
Your figure of 80 per cent may be accurate in your area i.e. say, In Chicago, in 2004. But that does NOT mean it is true today, and it does that mean the same percentage applies to section 8 participants in Peoria, Albuquerque, New Your, or Portland? And you are restricted by cases which you have personally investigated–so have you personally invested EVERY case in your region of State?
I doubt that every convicted criminal is funneled into government housing projects either. Not in my area–and not by a long shot!
Both my wife and I have disabilities (the kind of which I prefer to keep private) and in our lives we have known many people disabled, or not, who need assistance in obtaining affordable housing. To imply that 80% of them have criminal records is unfair and untrue–just as it would be wrong to say that 80% of people who collect food stamps are drug addicts or criminals. In this recession, many of them are middle class people with jobs and families to support who just can’t make a go of it without Federal help! Are your figures including every disabled person in your city or State who very much needs help with housing?
In one of my former posts I have already included some statistical facts published in the March/April 2013 edition of Mother Jones–a periodical famous for accurate and pertinent investigative journalism. Let me leave you with just a couple examples pertaining to gun ownership:
1. In 2010 nearly 10 times as many people were shot and killed in arguments, than by civilians trying to stop a crime. So, do guns really make us safer?
2. More than 50% of people who reported DGUs used them in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument rather than to protect themselves or their property!
Now, you may question the legitimacy of Mother Jones, and you may contest their statistics, but if you take it to trial, I’m sure you will have a very difficult time proving them to be wrong. They have been around the block many times and know how to preserve their journalistic integrity by using facts! Is that just my opinion? Perhaps, but it is one based on real observations and a verifiable reputation.
Remember that not only newspapers report on events that happen (in print) Many of them have online editions, and many blogs such as this one are involved in providing accurate information.
I think we should approach the bench so I can ask the judge to declare a miss trial due to your arguments and, your OPINIONS!
Mr. Vazquez,
Example number 1 above, should list the year as 2011. Sorry for the error.
[…] ( a continuation of the previous post which was the continuation of a prior post) […]
Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.
To declare that other races (“conquered subjects”) is in fact worse than banning guns to your own people. Hitler did not ban guns in Germany because most Germans were with him in his effort to take all of Europe and Russia. He in fact issued guns to his soldiers for that and it would have been almost impossible to have imposed gun control in that circumstance.
To declare that other races (“conquered subjects”) could not have guns is in fact worse than banning guns to your own people. Hitler did not ban guns in Germany because most Germans were with him in his effort to take all of Europe and Russia. He in fact issued guns to his soldiers for that purpose and it would have been ludicrous to have imposed gun control to other Germans under those circumstances.
Thank you for myth busting the Hitler 1935 quote. And I agree with point that propaganda is more dangerous than guns.
But aside from Waco, there are two other historic events that guns were used. The American Revolution and the Civil War. I wonder how those would have turned out if the average citizen wasn’t armed.
Neither the Revolutionary War nor the Civil War were fought by groups of armed citizens.
Initial battles in the RW were fought by local and state militias, which had some military training, but ultimately it was fought, and won, because Congress and Washington and his generals raised, equipped, and trained proper armies, with the help of the French and the Dutch.
By the time of the Civil War, even fewer citizens owned guns. From the beginning, both the Federal and the Confederate state governments forged proper armies from state militias, then called for additional volunteer armies to be formed. But in every case the armies were trained and equipped by the state and national governments.
So the answer to your question is: both wars would have turned out pretty much the same.
Biochemborg,
I agree totally that both these historical wars were fought by trained militias and standing armies. But I still see no need to deny anyone the use of a reasonably lethal handgun to repel intruders or defend one’s home. However, the notion that gun owners should have the right to access any weapons used by the Military (as some gun lovers suggest) is completely ridiculous. No one has the “right” to patrol his neighborhood from inside a tank, or to defend the neighborhood and/or his home with a machine gun.
Luckily such “ARMS” have long been recognized as dangerous to the public’s safety by the government. But why are we so lax about prohibiting large ammunition magazines, or in better checking the backgrounds of those who purchase thousands of rounds of ammunition, AR-15s, and bullet proof vests much too easily over the internet? If any technical issues stand in the way, the seriousness of mass shootings should be ample motivation for resolving those issues! Go, figure!
Confiscating private property whether it be guns or hammers is a loss of freedom. Why should a person work to earn when confiscation is going to wipe out your efforts.
Dale Netherton,
First of all Senator Feinstein’s bill would not have involved confiscating any weapons already privately owned, and banning certain weapons would not take all weapons away from gun owners anyway.
Personally, I can understand why the controversy over whether certain types of semi-automatic weapons might not result in preventing mass shootings, but, I cannot understand all of the resistance to limiting the capacity of ammo magazines. Many pro-gun people claim that they have the right to use large magazines while target practicing and it seems that, outside of sports and hobby uses, there is little need for them. And, what kind of poor babies are those on rifle ranges who cannot just change magazines more often in order to continue target shooting? Accepting such a minor degree of regulation, seems like a fair trade-off it it will keep those who want to commit mass shootings from possessing 100 round barrel magazines being able to commit their carnage without interruptions. I have heard many gun enthusiasts claim that firing up to 60 rounds per minute with a semi-automatic weapon is not quantitatively much different than the time it would take to fire 6 ten round magazines when quickly discharged, or, many of the other types of weapons that are commonly used. I don’t believe it! I think that even when an extra second or two is required to change magazines, those seconds can make a significant difference if someone is given the chance to duck behind some form of cover or run out of a room.
I am not claiming that many gun users would act irresponsibly with larger magazines, but, the issue really has to do with how far our personal freedoms can be extended before they begin to endanger the safety of the public i.e. I assume that the reason weapons like machine guns are already carefully regulated is not just to slap the wrists of those who might want to own them, but rather because the government and American citizens in general, recognize the great potential for harm to the public from such weapons.
The word, “ARMS,” used in the second amendment is literally defined in the dictionary as any kind of weapon. However, I think it would be entirely unreasonable to be angry at the government for preventing us from owning our own private tanks.
As someone who favors additional restrictions on certain weapons and someone who recognizes the need for truly effective back-ground checks—not the system riddled with loopholes and shortcomings like those in the 1994 ban, please believe me when I say that, I don’t fear the ability of most gun owners to act with restraint and a sense of responsibility—I just don’t agree that the need for things like large capacity ammo drums, rapidly firing semi-automatics, or personal body armor (in addition to owning vast quantities of ammunition) and acquiring all of these with relative ease over the internet, is conducive to public safety!
the fact that we are restricted from owning and using many types of dangerous weapons and devises, is a practical issue not one aimed personally at anyone who wants to own a gun. Unfortunately the issue has become so polarilzed that we are all prone to see the entire matter as one of confiscation versus complete freedom. But this really is not the primary issue involved!
I don’t know why my above reply was posted as (anonymous)? It was actually written by myself (Peter W. Johnson) and I expected it to appear under my own name. My understanding was that anyone could make a reply to any comment, but perhaps this one was specifically intended for a response from the POP.
Sorry, Peter. I have no idea why it appeared as “anonymous” either. I’ll see if I can get it straightened out.
Confiscation of a firearm from a person who has the intent to commit murder of, or injury to, another person is justifiable on the grounds of protection of society in general. Confiscation of a firearm from a person who has the intent to hunt for food is a denial of that person’s common law rights.
The courts decide intent after the fact, local police officers have a better idea of who should or should not, be allowed to own and use firearms T.
Tom Campbell, actually, that is incorrect– “local police officers have a better idea of who should or should not, be allowed to own and use firearms T” As someone who served as a police officer myself, I can tell you that local police no authority to “decide who should be allowed to own and use a firearm”. That is completely up to the courts (either in finding whether an individual is mentally incompetent, or finding him guilty of a Felony and in that way making him ineligible to own a weapon, etc), NOT the police. You do realize that the police and courts are members of two completely different branches of government– the courts are of the Judicial Branch, the police are of the Executive Branch? The job of the police is to enforce, or EXECUTE, the will of the courts (and thus indirectly the will of the legislative branch), not the other way around.
Furthermore, the ONLY, and very limited way the police can establish intent (and therefore disarm a person) is in an IMMEDIATE, on-the-scene sense– in other words, if they overhear an individual say something like “I am going to kill person X”, or if they witness a person enter a bank wearing a mask and wielding said firearm, etc. The police CANNOT simply disarm a person based on, for example, the results of a long-term investigation, which might lead them to a suspicion of a person’s “intent”– in that case, they would have to go to a judge (again, a member of the JUDICIAL BRANCH), and request a well-articulated and well-written, very specific WARRANT.
One has to be very careful about the words one chooses in a discussion like this, especially a word like “intent” that carries extremely specific definitions in the law.
We don’t want police who decide they can establish the “intent” of a suspect on their own, beyond the clear and present… an example of this would be “pre crime” in Minority Report…. “You are under arrest for a crime you will commit the future…”
Mr. Vazquez,
For once, we are in total agreement! Just how are the police expected to establish intent before any crime has been committed or before an immanent danger from any individual is perceived to threaten the public.
We do rely on the courts to decide such things, and if the current Congress passed further gun regulations, others would have the right to challenge those regulations in a court of law. But as always, I personally believe that laws can be passed regulating ownership guns or any types of weapons or devises that presents a definite danger to the public’s health and welfare.
Even the 1st Amendment comes with restrictions, so that none of us can scream FIRE! in a crowded theater. And, while it is possible that yelling FIRE might not result in death or injuries to panicked theater goers, the potential risk is so undeniable that such a situation is prohibited anyway!
“Even the 1st Amendment comes with restrictions, so that none of us can scream FIRE! in a crowded theater. And, while it is possible that yelling FIRE might not result in death or injuries to panicked theater goers, the potential risk is so undeniable that such a situation is prohibited anyway!”
Indeed it is. But yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is regulated not by Federal law, not even usually by State law, but by local (city/county) ordinances. In other words, unless the theater is owned by the US Government, if you yell “fire” in it, you will be arrested not by the police even, but by the local city or town fire marshal, who will write you a summons to appear in local city court. Not Federal court.
So if you’re arguing that similar restrictions on the 2nd amendment should be up to the states, counties and cities, not the Federal government, I agree with you completely. Which is actually the case– many cities and states have laws against taking firearms into establishments that serve alcohol, for example. Local law, not Federal.
Correct, except that I am NOT advocating that 1st Amendment limitations be ONLY regulated by the States. I daresay that many laws are on the books only within certain states of municipalities, but if an abuse is egregious enough, any law can be challenged in lower courts and taken on to our higher courts, even the Supreme court. So, you’re mistaking the point which I am trying to make, which is that, none our Constitutional Amendments are beyond challenging and none are permanently set in stone. Even the meaning of certain terms like “arms” although indicating virtually any weapon at all–such as as nuclear bombs–our courts certainly have the right to narrow the meaning of the word “arms’ because private ownership of atomic weapons presents an obvious threat to the public. Bad guys, as well as good guys cannot personally own them, and especially in this case, all of us represent POTENTIAL abusers of the 2nd amendment, even though we cannot predict who, once we exempt anyone, and crate a risk of nuclear attacks.
Although I don’t oppose banning all weapons, I am sure our world has changed immensely since the muskets used in earlier eras, so why shouldn’t the second of any amendment, or for that matter, any Amendment be changed to reflect differing realities?
Not to go too far on a tangent, but the First Amendment as written only applies to laws by Congress; there is no need for an “exception” to the First Amendment for someone shouting fire in a movie theater since it is clearly the commission of a common-law crime of nuisance.
I am aware that courts have mangled the First Amendment beyond recognition such that they have felt the need to carve out exceptions which need not have been carved out if the amendment were properly read.
Dirkjohanson,
I agree. I was responding to a commenter who raised the issue of whether or not such laws regulating public behaviour belong only to local and state jurisdictions rather than federal. I also assume that such a threat concerning and jeopardizing the public’s safety, is specifically prohibited by the 1st Amendment as a justifiable limitation to free speech. So, if local or state laws treat it differently, these laws and statutes would certainly be over-ridden by federal laws.
Unfortunately, my condensed copy of Constitution does not include detailed arguments about the entire realm of issue involved in any of the Amendments. But i assume these specific issues have been argued about and discussed over and over—attempting to leave no legal stone unturned—during the centuries of our country’s existence. The very fact that almost all of us have been given this example about the limits of our first amendment rights, implies that it exists on the books in any areas of the country and is accepted enough to make the pages of our history books and social studies texts. I lack any great amount of specific legal knowledge, but, as the saying goes, (I don’t have to jump over a cliff) to know that the resulting fall, is likely to hurt!
There’s a difference, though. It’s practical to have local bylaws governing acts like (falsely!) shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, because that’s an act that begins and ends in a fixed location. Possession of any particular sort of item, however, (firearms, drugs, bubblegum) is something that depends in large part on availability from nearby jurisdictions. So simply from a practical perspective, it may make more sense to make contraband laws with some consideration of patterns of distribution of the items in question. So local enforcement may not be the optimum strategy.
“So simply from a practical perspective, it may make more sense to make contraband laws with some consideration of patterns of distribution of the items in question. So local enforcement may not be the optimum strategy.”
The thing is that laws are not passed to facilitate “strategy”, but have to be based on Constitutionality. I have lost count of the laws that have been struck down by courts of all levels, on the basis that the mere fact that a law makes better law enforcement strategy, is irrelevant to the law’s constitutionality. In other words, it doesn’t matter if a law makes a policeman’s job easier. If laws were passed simply to make the jobs of policemen easier, we’d quickly have a body of laws that would create a KGB or a Gestapo– their laws made their jobs very ,very easy, and reflected great law enforcement “strategy”.
The Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution already places crimes in which weapons are transported across state lines to commit crimes, under Federal jurisdiction. I’m not sure what more than that you’d want.
Yet practical requirements also shape the crafting of laws, as they must. If the constitutional division of powers frustrates the effective implementation of a needed policy, that’s a sign that maybe the constitution needs to be amended, not that the policy should be abandoned.
“If the constitutional division of powers frustrates the effective implementation of a needed policy, that’s a sign that maybe the constitution needs to be amended, not that the policy should be abandoned.”
I must say, I think you have accomplished something extraordinary. You have encapsulated the argument for totalitarianism briefly, succinctly, and articulately.
My objections to what you’ve written are myriad, but I’ll start with these:
1)”If the constitutional division of powers frustrates the effective implementation of a needed policy, that’s a sign that maybe the constitution needs to be amended..”
No, if the Constitution “frustrates” policy, then it’s a sign that that policy is unconstitutional, and should not be implemented. That’s exactly why we have a Constitution, to delineate what is and what is not acceptable policy. We have a constitution to “frustrate” the unlawful. And if someone feels “frustrated” by the Constitution, then it’s a sign that perhaps they are in the wrong place. What you wrote is so monstrously offensive to the philosophy of government that our Framers wrote about, that it’s almost comical.
Furthermore, if all 3 branches of government are against your “needed” policy, how on Earth are you going to amend the Constitution, which would require the majority and cooperation of at least the Legislative branch– and the Executive to implement it, and the Judicial to uphold it?
2)You are unable to articulate exactly what “policy” you want to implement. But yet, you want to amend the Constitution to implement that unknown, unarticulated policy?
3)I understand that to you, the policy is “needed”. That is your opinion. Needed by whom? The majority of police officers don’t feel this unarticulated policy is “needed”. The majority of elected representatives don’t feel the policy is “needed”. Which shows that the majority of Americans don’t feel the policy is “needed”. And I have a feeling that if it were brought in front of the Supreme Court today, they wouldn’t feel it was “needed”. So that’s 3 branches– the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial, who don’t think it’s “needed”. But yet, you feel you have a basis to amend the Constitution? On what basis? With what? What would the amendment be? I’m at a loss.
“And if someone feels ‘frustrated’ by the Constitution, then it’s a sign that perhaps they are in the wrong place.”
You may want to rethink that statement. There are three examples of people “frustrated” by the Constitution who sought, and achieved, a remedy by amending it. They are:
Blacks in the 19th century, who were released from slavery and won equal civil rights with whites through the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments
Women in the 20th century, who won the right to vote through the 19th Amendment
18-20 year olds in the 20th century, who won the right to vote through the 26th Amendment
The purpose of the amendment process is to address concerns voiced by people “frustrated” with the current state of the Constitution. If the proposed amendment has merit, it will pass; otherwise, it won’t.
In support of Biochemborg,
You are absolutely right that the groups of “frustrated” Americans you mentioned did take actions that eventually resulted in changing parts of our Constitution.
I don’t understand Mr. Vasquez’s comment about being irritated by the Constitution (or some other word with the same meaning) being a sure way to argue for totalitarianism. Here is part of what he said:
“I must say, I think you have accomplished something extraordinary. You have encapsulated the argument for totalitarianism briefly, succinctly, and articulately”.
Obviously our government created a separation of powers in order to keep the three branches from dominating the other, but all of these branches, derive their power from the people–all of us. If ordinary citizens have no avenue for challenging the governments laws, then THat, is the true way to establish a totalitarian government.
Just like voter referendums are no guarantee that the public can institute the most constitutionally sound State laws—the converse is true of the courts making rulings which truly are not needed or are a step backwards in the pursuit of justice.
Consider the fact that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life–that means that a court dominated by Conservatives or visa versa, has a good chance to influence decisions according to conservative philosophy, or visa versa. And, if all of the rulings they make are written in stone–impervious to change, forever unresponsive to the will of the people, than we would indeed, be truly on our way to ensuring an autocracy built on Conservative policies.(or visa versa).
Sure it would be hard to amend the constitution without at least having support from the legislative branch, but if history holds true, gradually, representatives that reflect the changing mentality of the electorate, will be given the power to make laws. And if we the people have not got the right to challenge any laws passed in Congress or the ways they are ruled on by the courts, then what is to stand in the way of one party dominating the legal makeup of the government indefinitely.
I really think that this matter of appointing justices for life, make no sense. I would think a term of 8 to 10 years would be much better. As it is, a conservative court has recently granted the presidency to someone without a majority of the popular vote, and it has allowed large financial institutions to make unlimited contributions to candidates in our elections, on the basis that money is analogous to free speech, and, like Orwell’s 1984 it is obvious that all pigs with money are equal, however, some have more money that makes them MORE equal than others! Who needs it?
Please note that I was not talking about specifics at all. I took no position on whether or not any particular policy was needed, simply that IF the constitutional division of powers proves to be problematic for implementation of a NEEDED policy, then a constitutional amendment may be in order. That is part of the reason constitutions have amending formulas, after all.
Jurisdiction over various matters has changed from the original intent. It was once the case (and still is MOSTLY the case) that the state legislatures had exclusive jurisdiction over who was eligible to vote. Was it an intrusion into state jurisdiction to add amendments guaranteeing the right to vote to blacks and women? Yeah, I reckon it was. Was it inappropriate? I don’t think so. The nation has a pressing interest in the integrity of its democracy, and it’s not overreaching for it to prohibit a state from declaring itself a hereditary monarchy and assigning all its electoral votes and Congressional representatives by royal appointment.
Then David, as a police officer you must have been rather out of touch with the community you served if you had no idea as to who was, or was not, a fit person to own a firearm. My suggestion is that gun owners are licensed and that fitness to have a license is based on the opinion of the local firearms officer, much in the same way that drivers of motor vehicles are licensed on the opinion of a driving examiner. T.
“Then David, as a police officer you must have been rather out of touch with the community you served if you had no idea as to who was, or was not, a fit person to own a firearm.”
Oh I had my own personal ideas on who was fit to own a firearm, just as I had my own ideas on who is fit enough to be a parent, who is fit enough to own a car, and definitely who is fit enough to sit on the City Council… however, my own personal opinions were not exactly enforceable as law.
I’m not sure how large the town is you live in, but the city I worked in had close to half a million inhabitants, which would be “my community”…. furthermore, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is a felony itself in my state, and police officers have the right and duty to make arrests for felonies they encounter not just in their own cities, but in their entire state…. so that would expand the size of the relevant “community” to tens of millions of people. Sorry to shock you with this, but police officers have better things to do with their mornings than sit down and memorize lists of thousands of people who can or cannot own firearms.
Besides that is a much more important point– in reality, when I was a patrol officer, there was one group of people who I was very sure couldn’t own firearms– residents of the projects. Why? Because for one thing, the project rules prohibited them inside the projects. But also because the projects are full of convicted felons, who cannot, by definition, own firearms. But amazingly, the majority of firearms I confiscated from people during traffic stops, after vehicle pursuits of stolen vehicles, during narcotics arrests, and simple execution of arrest warrants, I found on the persons of, voila, convicted felons! Which tells you that if not the majority, but a large number, of individuals carrying and using guns in crimes are, amazingly, convicted felons.
So, being a convicted felon is the most obvious sign of “fitness” to own a firearm.
“My suggestion is that gun owners are licensed..”
That’s a cute idea, but, unfortunately for you, unconstitutional. It would be just as unconstitutional to require a person to have a license to own a firearm as it would be to require a person to have a license to speak, or a license to request a lawyer be present during questioning, or a license to sit at the front of a bus, or a license to vote. In my state we don’t require licenses to exercise our civil rights.
“and that fitness to have a license is based on the opinion of the local firearms officer,..”
Alles klar, Herr Komissar? I was about to ask if this was an April Fools joke, but I don’t suppose it is.
To begin with, if you’re American, you display a terrible lack of understanding of our system regarding this. For one thing, you got the branch of government wrong– it isn’t the Executive Branch (police officers) who determine the fitness of people to own firearms, it’s the Judicial branch (judges) who do so. It is judges who decide these things, and judges who issue Concealed Carry permits, and the like. And with good reason. To put policemen in charge of allowing individuals to have and exercise their civil rights would be inviting tyranny. What’s next, stationing policemen at voting booths so they can determine who is and who isn’t fit to vote?
And finally, you display an amazing amount of absolute trust in policemen. You do realize that all you need to join the police department is a High School diploma (or GED), and of course a relatively clear criminal record? Absolutely no training in constitutional law (beyond of course knowledge of basic criminal law), No requirement to go to a day of Law School. No requirement to attend a single Psychology course at the college level for a single day. No Medical or Psychiatric training whatsoever. But you want to put such a person in charge of deciding who is psychologically fit or unfit to own a firearm? Are you truly serious? As someone who served as a policeman for years– both as a patrolman as as a Detective– and having known thousands of policemen, I think you’re nuts to suggest such a thing. And if a former policeman, in whom apparently you put a great deal of trust, tells you your idea is nuts, what does that say about it…?
Not to mention the fact that if the entire city knows that one single police officer is in charge of who can or cannot own a firearm, how long do you think it would take for that officer to be bribed..? (Officers in my city make, on average, less than $40,000/year take home). To suddenly receive all kinds of offers of special favors… “the good ole boy network”, if not already existing in that town, would blossom into full bloom within days. Only the powerful and influential would have firearms, regardless of their “fitness”. This is one of the reasons why the system you suggest is not in existence. That’s why the system we have in place in my state works great. No reason to change it on a whim.
“..much in the same way that drivers of motor vehicles are licensed on the opinion of a driving examiner…”
This is the old tired argument again. And for the umpteenth time, comparing the right to own a firearm, which is a basic civil right enshrined in the Constitution, to a privilege– operating a motor vehicle on a public road– is nonsense. The former is a basic right, the latter is a privilege. We do not issue licenses to own firearms just as we don’t issue licenses to speak, or a license to vote, or a license to enter any cafeteria we wish regardless of our race. Clear?
Furthermore, if we were to respect your analogy– owning a motor vehicle, at least in the United States, does not require a license of any kind. You can go out and buy a 1953 VW Beetle or a 1968 Impala or a 2012 Hummer and tow it home (or have a friend drive it home) without a license of any kind. In fact, you can drive your vehicle (for example driving your sandrail all over your privately-owned beachfront property) all day long, without a driver’s license, and without even registering your vehicle, and without insurance. You could even drive it dead drunk, on your own property. So, simply owning a vehicle, in the US, does not require a license of ANY kind. So if we were to respect your analogy, neither should owning a firearm. (In case you’re wondering, operating a motor vehicle on a PUBLIC ROAD is what requires a license, insurance, and registration, and sobriety, for that matter).
And, in fact, that’s the way it is in my state– OWNING a firearm doesn’t require a license, but if you want to use it in a “PUBLIC” way– such as if you want to carry it while working as a security guard or Private Investigator, for instance– you DO need various licenses. BUT most people don’t do that, they just keep their firearms at home (or carry them openly out of doors, which in my state does not require a license).
So, come to think of it, I kinda do like your analogy .
From Peter W. Johnsons,
once again my comment in support of Biochemborg, was listed as being posted by anonymous. I supposed again that if I included the words–in support of Biochemborg–that my response would be printed under my name.
I still have no idea why this is happening. Looking into it.
For Dirkjohanson,
I am unfamiliar with any part of the first amendment which has been mangled by adding examples of exceptions to the rule. I know a lot of discourse must have taken place concerning it, but, I only am familiar with the famous paragraph describing its basic scope, and, this paragraph does not seem to reveal any specific mention of limitations to the Amendment.
What do you mean by, stating that their would be no need to mangle the Amendment with exceptions if it had been interpreted correctly as first written?
Perhaps I’ll Google the 1st Amendment tomorrow and read up on a more detailed statement of its provisions.
What I mean is that the First Amendment, as written, patently only applies to laws by Congress, “Congress shall make no law ….”
I should also offer this article:
“A Tub to the Whale”: The Founding Fathers and Adoption of the Federal Bill of Rights
Click to access ATubtotheWhale.pdf
It describes the history of the debate over the adoption of the Bill of Rights, both before and during the First Congress. There was actually strong opposition among Federalists to a bill of rights, arguing that that a specific list was unnecessary and could even be dangerous.
A short comment about the above post. I may have mistakenly referred to Adam Lanza, rather than John Homes when discussing the types of materials purchased over the internet, but I believe both had amassed extensive arsenals and both had used the internet for some of their purchase.
Peter W. Johnson
[…] already given far, far FAR more attention to the Obama-Hitler meme (here, and here and here) than it ever deserved. Unfortunately, it’s still bringing in the […]
Thank you for the history lesson – very good.
Thank you too.
Hitler’s gun control only applied to Jews and other people the Nazis saw as undesirable. The only people allowed to own firearms were Germans and Aryans. (people who the Nazis thought were the master race) Basically if you were of Aryan or German decent than you could own a gun, but if you were Jewish or under German occupation in countries like, France, Belgium, or the Netherlands. Then you couldn’t own any fire arm. That’s why the Allies would smuggle weapons to resistance and partisan groups in occupied Europe.
So to all you paranoid NRA idiots out there stop comparing Obama’s gun control policies to that of the Nazis. Because as it was said in the article. If you display Hitler or the Nazis then you are just arguing your own case.
[…] A good example is the following statement from my post The Myth Of Hitler’s Gun Ban. […]
[…] thus proving that only tyrants who want to disarm the people could support gun control. First, Hitler didn’t ban guns in Germany; he actually made it easier for most Germans to get a […]
[…] thus proving that only tyrants who want to disarm the people could support gun control. First, Hitler didn’t ban guns in Germany; he actually made it easier for most Germans to get a […]
When someone writes an paragraph he/she retains the plan
of a user in his/her brain that how a user can understand it.
Thus that’s why this post is outstdanding. Thanks!
At times the simplest method to gotten rid of embedded
control sequences is to duplicate and insert the afflicted area
to notepad, clear out the content you wish maintained, then copy and insert it back.
Well, My response is that my Grandmother’s entire family was killed in Auschwitz by Hitler’s actions. First they outlawed Jews from owning guns and then rounded them a lot of Pole up, put them on trains in cattle cars! Then sent them to the death camps! I remember the Tattoo on her right arm and he saying never give up your guns. This was from someone who lost her entire family to Nazi State. I’ve been to the Holocaust Museum & Auschwitz.
This site is an insult to those of Jewish heritage such as myself.
If it makes sense to you maybe you and Hannibal Lecture have the same mentality or similar mental disorders.
When only the Government has guns it’s police state, When the citizens have guns its Liberty.
Mike Walters — Then kindly explain the Warsaw Uprising, in which the Jews WERE armed.
In fact, as I’ve mentioned, the Jews staged NUMEROUS acts of armed resistance. None of them stopped the Holocaust.
Someone should write an article on the societal benefits of streaming media such as Netflix. The availability of historical movies and documentaries is a wonderful way to acquire intellectual stimulation. Wikipedia is a tool to share historical facts, but it often fails to change perceptions.
Professor I’ve enjoyed your intellectual dissection of the Hitler’s gun ban myth. I’m familiar with another argument used from your ideological opposition. The tactic of not being able to associate Hitler or Nazi Germany in a political argument.
I recently watched the 1961 movie titled Judgment at Nuremberg after discovering it on Netflix. The cast included Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, and Judy Garland. Three quarters into the movie there was an impressive explanation of how the atrocities of Germany was allowed to spread. I’m sure many have asked the same question, but rarely has such clarity been provided in an answer.
I applied the YouTube video of Ernst Jennings speech as an association to an essay I wrote called “A Better Way For Political Discourse”. I’m interested how other gauge the relevancy of this association.
http://wow.dogoodgauge.org/site/DoGoodGauge/page_associations/single_display/67
Sorry, the previous link got clipped in the submission. Here is the correct link.
http://wow.dogoodgauge.org/site/DoGoodGauge/page_associations/single_display/676
Thanks. I’ll look this over as soon as I can.
Undeniably believe that which you stated. Your favorite reason appeared to be
on the web the easiest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I definitely get irked while people consider worries that they just don’t know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and also defined out the whole thing without having side-effects , people can take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks
whoah this weblog is fantastic i really like reading your posts.
Keep up the great work! You recognize, a lot of individuals are searching round for this info, you could help them greatly.
Dear POP,
I subscribe to several of your articles and recently left two comments about the July article called “Why conservative can no longer be taken seriously.”–or words to that effect.
Although I provide my name and email address, and I ask to be notified of new comments or responses to my comments, I have never received an email message concerning one of my comments or responses to them by others. I list the website as “The propaganda Professor.” Is this what the correct web address should be?
Sincerely, Peter W. Johnson
The address is propagandaprofessor.net. Are you saying some of your comments have not been posted? Or you just haven’t received an email notification? Sometimes strange things happen that I had nothing to do with, but I’ll see if I can check into it
Hello POP,
My comments are posted, but I receive no notification in my email before they are. I also have not seen any notifications of replies to my comments even though in your July article, although I believe one of my comments was responded to by at least one person.
Thanks for responding, I hope this can be resolved either on your end or after I contact members of my online tech support program.
Peter W. Johnson
Just wanted to notify you that I found your page on
and while I enjoyed looking at your post, it looks like
your blog acts up in a couple browsers. When I check out your page in Safari, it looks
fine however, when opening in Firefox, it has a few overlapping issues.
I just wanted to provide you with a quick heads up, that’s all.
Thanks. I must confess I’m not very tech savvy, so I’m not sure yet what to do about this. I’d welcome suggestions. Initially, I did my editing in Firefox, but I started having issues with it too. Now I use Google Chrome, which usually is headache-free.
Hmm it looks like your website ate my first comment (it was extremely long) so I
guess I’ll just sum it up what I had written and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog.
I as well am an aspiring blog blogger but I’m still new to the whole thing. Do you have any recommendations for inexperienced blog writers? I’d really
appreciate it.
So sorry your comment got lost. I have no idea what happened. There be gremlins in this Internet world! One of the best pieces of advice I can give is advice that I don’t really follow myself, but I know I should : namely, to make frequent posts. About 3 times a week is ideal. (Mine are more like 2 or 3 times a month.) Not all posts have to be long and involved the way mine tend to be. Some of them should be, but most can be lighter and shorter. Other advice I should probably follow better: break up long text with photos, graphics, sub-headings, quotes, etc. And I don’t know what type of blog you’re planning, but if, like mine, it deals with factual matter, do your homework very, very thoroughly. Oh, and make people laugh occasionally.
I am replying briefly to the advice you gave to an aspiring blogger about what might help him.
One of my favorite qualities in your posts, is the way you so effectively use sarcasm and tongue in cheek humor. Sometimes I can’t help but chuckle over some particularly apt descriptions of crazy and extreme thinking on the part of fanatic gun owners, whose illogic you illuminate so well—What else is there to do, you can either laugh or cry?
Although some of the bluntest humor used by you, or any other writer may alienate or polarize people with extreme views, I recognize it as a valid safety valve that can be used when the BS and lies are actually so funny, that laughter is the only alternative.
At the moment, I can’t think of specific examples, but I know they infuse every one of your posts with a good human touch—illustrating that it is not always possible to write in a way that is “sober as a judge,” or that offends no one.
Republicans especially have made so many outlandish claims and absurd observations, that the way your wit puts them in perspective is a refreshing treat. Keep up the good work!
Thanks!
Just curious, what’s the difference between “fanatical gun owners” and non-fanatical gun owners?
I’ve addressed that point somewhere, but I don’t recall exactly where at the moment. Essentially it’s the difference between a gourmet and a glutton.
What, specifically, is the difference between a “gourmet” and a “glutton”, in this context?
Here’s an excerpt from my post titled “Gun Culture Fires Back — With Blanks”.:
I have known some whom I never would have suspected to be gun owners, because they didn’t make an issue of it. They didn’t conspicuously flash their pieces, they didn’t display issues of Guns and Ammo on their coffee table or NRA stickers on their pickups, they didn’t rant about their “Second Amendment rights”. They were just healthy adults who happened to own firearms.
And then there are the others. The ones who frequent gun shows and hang out every day on online gun forums. The ones who forward every anecdote that comes down the pike about a granny with a shotgun fending off a gang of rapists. The ones who foam at the mouth about the big bad guvmint wanting to take away their toys. The ones who fawn like schoolgirls over implements of death and mayhem as if they were Faberge eggs. These are probably prime candidates for a twelve-step program.
Well, if that quote reflects your own opinion, I’ll share my situation with you and you tell me if I’m a “glutton” or a “gourmet”.
1) “They didn’t conspicuously flash their pieces”. Well, I “conspicuously flashed my piece” for many years- as a Marine, and later, as a police officer, which I was until recently. I would say that all police officers, all tens of thousands of them, flash their pieces conspicuously…. so by that measure, I suppose we’re all “gluttons”. These days I have a Concealed Carry permit so, by definition, I don’t “flash it conspicuously”, On the other hand, I live in an Open Carry state, which means it is legal to carry a firearm publicly as long as it is not covered/concealed. And, the police will not infringe on that right– unfortunately, an officer in my department attempted to do so and the case made it to Federal court, not ending favorably for the police….
2)”they didn’t display issues of Guns and Ammo on their coffee table or NRA stickers on their pickups: Who gets paper magazines anymore? And I don’t own a pick up truck.
3) “they didn’t rant about their “Second Amendment rights”” I don’t rant, about anything But I have received and given, as a trainer (while a police officer) training regarding the 2nd amendment and about how if we, as a department, attempted to infringe on it, we would be sued…
4)”And then there are the others. The ones who frequent gun shows…” Well, I don’t know many police officers, current or former, who DON’T frequent gun shows In fact, my supervisor, who just retired, just opened up his own gun store, and, in my state, the Commonwealth of Virginia, it is very common for gun store owners to set up booths at gun shows. It brings in a lot of business, and prices are often lower at gun shows, because the opportunity to haggle and trade is present at gun shows and not usually so at gun stores. I have bought most of my firearms at gun shows. Does this make me a “glutton”?
5) ” and hang out every day on online gun forums.” I’ve never been to any “online forums”, gun or otherwise.
6)” The ones who forward every anecdote that comes down the pike about a granny with a shotgun fending off a gang of rapists.” Well, I didn’t “forward anecdotes”, but “forwarded” case reports and incident reports regarding incidents in which citizens “fended off” criminals with firearms. And, we had to forward every single “anecdote” that we encountered, because it is required by federal law for police departments to forward incident reports to the FBI. Of course, they weren’t “anecdotes”, they were simply actual incidents. Gluttony?
7) “The ones who foam at the mouth about the big bad guvmint wanting to take away their toys.” I don’t foam at the mouth, about anything.
8)” The ones who fawn like schoolgirls over implements of death and mayhem as if they were Faberge eggs.” Well, again, I don’t know any police officers, male or female, who DON’T “fawn over” firearms. We love them If we didn’t, we wouldn’t have become police officers. We have to be proficient not just at the USE of firearms, but identifying them, recognizing the different models, describing them competently in court, etc etc. It would be really, really difficult to do all of that WITHOUT being in love with the subject. You would be hard-pressed to find Harley Davidson mechanics who work on Harleys all day long, day in, day out, who don’t LOVE Harleys, and “fawn over” their bikes. Gluttony? And, I haven’t gotten into how Marines feel about firearms… probably even more so.
So, in your book, am I a “glutton”?
Mr. Vazquez,
As far as your questioning the POP about what he regards as gun fanatics; I have a friend who I hung out with years ago and who was very into all of the science, engineering and aesthetics, involved with guns.
He has worked at a local gun store for many years and, although I haven’t seen him for quite a while, I am sure he still admires the workmanship behind what he sells. However he has never felt the need to angrily comment about 2nd Amendment rights and I have never heard him advance the absurd notion that a democratic government would ever try to confiscate the guns of ordinary citizens, without the President being immediately impeached if ever being behind such an improbable (to say the least) plot.
In regards to one of your analogies about Harley owners, yes they are very into their bikes and some tend to live eat and breath their hobby, but, I have never heard any of them say, that any regulations for motor-cycles, necessitated for safety on the highways, meant that the highway dept. was planning to forcefully take away their bikes.
I don’t know if many gun owners I have ever met have actually “flashed their weapons,” but I do think there is a great difference between an ordinary citizen that might do so, and a professional policeman or a soldier in the armed forces. Perhaps for these people it is advantageous to occasionally display their firepower in the way of providing an unspoken deterrent, but, if private citizens were to do so, (and the POP claims that he has been around people who have) then I would think these people were sort of weird and fanatic. I personally have not experience these kinds of gun owners, but I will give the POP the benefit of the doubt for describing such people who apparently are a bit fanatical—and whom he has met.
But all of these peripheral arguments are not very important to me when I think of gun fanatics, because to me, the fact that a bill, like the Manchin-Toomey compromise bill (authored in part by a Republican Congressman who had an A rating from the NRA for upholding 2nd Amendment rights) indicates, that the NRA is unwilling to accept even the most basic and fair regulations to prevent guns from ending up in the wrong hands. In particular the bill was voted down because Congressmen were intimidated by the NRA’s insistence that even expanding background checks at gun shows and checking online purchases, represented dangerous infringements on 2nd Amendment rights.
I am sure you can come up with any number of arguments in their support, but to me, the fact that a potential employer, a landlord, the DMV, or any officer that stops a car with a malfunctioning tail light, (as has happened with me) indicates a much more bold intrusion on my rights, than merely having a gun dealer make sure I am not a convicted felon, or an escapee from a mental hospital. But I see no point in decrying such simple measures needed to prevent potential crimes and/or the abuse of driving privileges.
The intention of such regulations is not to deny my rights, but to prevent anyone who poses a real danger not to be allowed access to driving motor vehicles irresponsibly, and the rights of employers not to hire dangerous felons, or landlords not to rent to dangerous individuals like perhaps, meth dealers. Those that do not pose a danger, which are the vast majority of firearms customers, employees and renters are free to complete the purchase. This is also analogous to the fact that IF I have been caught driving drunk, and a cop discovers that I have had three previous DUIs, that this is a perfectly good reason to arrest me and have the court system deny me any future license.
I believe Senator Toomey called his co-authored bill one of the most reasonable proposals possible and he was completely stymied by the fact that anyone could consider a simple expansion of background checks to imply violation of 2nd amendment rights.
The point is, that, and I don’t care to hear arguments about rocks being used as murder weapons, or the fact that car owners can be in accidents, as proof that gun ownership also is a commonsense right that poses no threat to the public. None of these bogus arguments involves objects used with the express intent to kill or injure other human beings—sure, guns are also used for target practice and self defense but target practice is not what guns were invented for, and self-defense does not necessitate absolutely zero attempt to responsibly regulate weapons which also can be used as a very real threat to human life. Has any mass shooter ever ordered a bag of rocks on line, with the specific intent to kill innocent theatre goers with them?
I also am not sure of what the POP means by gun addicts or gun fanatics but I have not had the same encounters that he has with the people to which he gives this designation. But, I would call any gun owner who balks at even the most simple forms of regulation (not control) over firearms i.e. simple background checks, to ensure that Charlie manson is not the customer trying to buy one, as having a definite problem with firearms and, yes, such a person is worthy of being described with the words fanatic or even addicts!
It sounds like you’re at least borderline. Things are, of course, quite different for active law enforcement personnel than for civilians.
POP,
I just want to make you aware that comments I have left recently on “The Myth of Hitler’s gun ban,” forum, seem to land all over the map in your commenting space—never appearing directly after a comment I intended to reply to.
Is there a reason for this?
You seem to be all over the map, and I don’t think you have a firm understanding of current laws relating to firearms, nor of basic constitutional issues.
But, to answer some of your points:
1)”…He has worked at a local gun store for many years and, although I haven’t seen him for quite a while, I am sure he still admires the workmanship behind what he sells. However he has never felt the need to angrily comment about 2nd Amendment rights…”
So, someone, one single person, whom you haven’t seen in quite a while and therefore don’t know very well (by your own admission)… you feel you know that he “has never felt the need to..” do X. Sorry, but I don’t think that you know him well enough to say something like that. I would say that you’d need to be married to someone, and spend most of the day with someone, in privacy and confidence, to know whether someone “never feels the need” to do something, anything. I’m afraid that trying to assign someone an attitude, or actions, that you have no way of knowing are actually the case, is not very strong evidence, if you can call it that, in favor of your position. For example, if you were to attempt to testify in court that someone you barely know couldn’t possibly be a thief because you’ve never heard him speak favorably about thievery (even though you haven’t seen him in a decade), would not exactly be very strong character witness testimony for him.
2)It’s very telling that you have an aversion to someone “angrily comment” about something, anything, is enough for you to label them “a fanatic”. I will be sure to monitor your comments closely, and will alert you the moment I find you “angrily commenting” about anything, because that would label you as a fanatic, correct…?
3)”I don’t know if many gun owners I have ever met have actually “flashed their weapons,” but I do think there is a great difference between an ordinary citizen that might do so, and a professional policeman or a soldier in the armed forces.”
Really? How so? For example, what was the difference between me doing so while a police officer on duty, or a police officer off duty, or as a civilian, exactly 5 minutes after i left the police department? Did I suddenly lose my competence and abilities and knowledge of the law during that 5 minutes? Did all of my knowledge and abilities suddenly disappear? I don’t think so. And I don’t think I understand what you mean by “flashing weapons”. What exactly does that mean? In my state, there is open carry. You can carry a firearm openly, on your hip, for all to see. No need to “flash” it. What exactly does “flashing” mean?
4) “Perhaps for these people it is advantageous to occasionally display their firepower in the way of providing an unspoken deterrent, but, if private citizens were to do so, (and the POP claims that he has been around people who have) then I would think these people were sort of weird and fanatic.”
Really? You think that brandishing a firearm, in order to protect your own life or that of another, is “weird and fanatic”. You clearly have never lived where I’ve lived and worked as a police officer. Try carrying that attitude into many parts of Ocean View or Park Place in Norfolk, VA (one of the most crime-ridden cities in Virginia) or Richmond, or many parts of Arlington or Fairfax counties. I have interviewed many victims of crimes during the course of my duties as a police detective, who brandished their own personal firearms in order to protect themselves from being robbed or assaulted. I don’t look at these people as “weird” or “fanatical” in any way– they exercised their rights and protected themselves. And, think about it, whose opinion is really worth more– a police officer’s, who has had years of experience with firearms, or someone who has no experience with crime and firearms? Additionally, I myself, while a private citizen, and prior to becoming a police officer, had to protect myself with my firearm and escaped with my life (though I was assaulted) during an incident in Virginia Beach. So, I have experience with it even as a private citizen. My experience isn’t limited to “people I know”.
5)”… but I will give the POP the benefit of the doubt for describing such people who apparently are a bit fanatical—and whom he has met.”
I don’t give anyone online “the benefit of the doubt”. Through my experience, almost everyone online with a political agenda, lies. For that matter, almost everyone online, period, lies. For me to believe a claim online, I would need to verify it– by name, location, contactable references, etc etc.
6)”In particular the bill was voted down because Congressmen were intimidated by the NRA’s insistence that even expanding background checks at gun shows…”
I’ve heard this claim about “expanding background checks”. I don’t think you understand what a “background check” is, or what the law states is necessary and sufficient for something to be called a “background check”. A background check consists of 1)a check to determine if an individual is a CONVICTED FELON 2)a check to determine if an individual is under a Protective Order and 3)a check to determine if an individual was determined to be mentally deficient by a JUDGE. These checks are EXACTLY like what I did when I found a weapon on a citizen– if all of those checks were negative, the person went on his way with his weapons. I am asking you, specifically– pretend I’m a police officer who has found a citizen in possession of a weapon What MORE do you want me to check, other than the above? How do you want it “expanded”? Would you want me to check his race, political affiliation, favorite sexual positions..? What more do you want checked, other than what the law states must be checked?
7)” and checking online purchases..” Once again, I don’t think you are familiar with current firearms laws, which throws water on the legitimacy and strength of your arguments. You are apparently unaware that it is illegal to purchase firearms online (and presumably, have them delivered to your home, like an Amazon order). At least not weapons manufactured less than about 100 years ago. I did once purchase an 1895 Mosin Nagant through the mail, but once again, it was older than 100 years. So, to make it clear to you, it is illegal to purchase most firearms online, and has been for decades already.
8)”any officer that stops a car with a malfunctioning tail light, (as has happened with me) indicates a much more bold intrusion on my rights..” Once again, you seem to be unclear on basic constitutional questions. In the state of Virginia, you don’t have the Constitutional “right” to drive a car on a public road. Indeed, you don’t have a “right” to even have a driver’s license. To drive at all, to drive a vehicle on a public road in Virginia, is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. So any curbing of that privilege does not infringe on your Constitutional rights in any way, including stopping you for a broken taillight This has nothing to do with the 1st, 2nd and 3rd amendments etc etc, which describe RIGHTS, not privileges. This is civics 101. Once again, your misunderstanding of such basic legal principles throws most everything else you have to say into disrepute, so to speak.
9)”.. and a cop discovers that I have had three previous DUIs, that this is a perfectly good reason to arrest me and have the court system deny me any future license.” Again, I don’t know where this is coming from. In Virginia, a police officer (not a “cop”) has the obligation to arrest for DUI no matter if it’s the FIRST offense…. and the 3rd offense is automatically a Felony. The judge doesn’t have to wait for 3rd offense to revoke a license either.
10)”None of these bogus arguments involves objects used with the express intent to kill or injure other human beings—sure, guns are also used for target practice and self defense but target practice is not what guns were invented for, and self-defense does not necessitate absolutely zero attempt to responsibly regulate weapons which also can be used as a very real threat to human life.”
I see, so does this mean you are in favor of background checks for knives as well? I worked more cases of individuals being cut/lacerated/assaulted with knives than with firearms.
11)”Has any mass shooter ever ordered a bag of rocks on line, with the specific intent to kill innocent theatre goers with them?”
Uh, has any “mass shooter”, in the last 20 or 30 years, ordered/purchased a firearm online, and used that firearm to kill anyone? If so, do name these killers, specifically. (once again, the ignorance of the subject matter comes to the fore).
Finally, I no longer follow politics or legislation in the United States. But what I DO do is keep track of which organizations Leftists decry/attack/criticize/demonize etc, and then I support those organizations wholeheartedly, sometimes with cash, sometimes with support– whether active or simple moral support. I really don’t know much about the NRA (though I was several times urged to join by several fellow police officers…. I’m just not much of a joiner), but when I see so many Leftists decrying it, I tend to think that that is exactly what I should be supporting. It’s kind of like in high school, when the haughty, too-big-for-his-britches stuck up kid says “Don’t call me X! I just hate being called X!”, that kid is going to be called X for the rest of his days. I tend to support X, if the wrong people hate it.
Mr. Vasquez,
My last post in reply to you was zapped so here goes another;
Have you never had a friend whom, although not seen for many years his opinions you already know and would be surprised about if they changed in any great way? Yes people change, but not very often, and I definitely do not have to see my friends everyday or marry them, in order to know their basic opinions. By this reasoning you also must misunderstand every word I say, since we are not close friends, nor do we exchange forum comments with each other daily!
Another interesting thing about my friend who works at a local gun store, is that as an adolescent in New Jersey, he carried a concealed knife to school every day for protection, but still is not one to stand on a soapbox and preach the evils of regulating guns.
My references to term like gun fanatics and gun gluttons etc. are only used to refer to statements by the POP, you, or many other commenters. However statistical evidence provides great amount of evidence that most gun owners are not extreme promoters of 2nd Amendment rights. In fact there are only about 4.2 million members of the NRA while there are about 80 million gun owners who own 310 million guns. What does that imply about the great number of gun enthusiasts who, like my friend, like and own weapons, yet do not need to become politically extreme about them? However, I have heard enough rants online and in digital gun journals which decide that many fanatics also exist. These are likely the people referred to by the pop.
I would not be shocked to see a policeman display his gun when on duty, but what concerns me is when anyone, having a conceal and carry permit, does so in a crowded bar full of drunks—and am I to believe this NEVER happens, or that gun carrier NEVER decide to have some drinks? I’m very glad that not all states permit this!
And the straw man argument you advance about the idea that I consider anyone who is angry (ever) as being a fanatic, implying that this means I think all angry comments indicate fanaticism, is obviously not a valid one. It also DOES make much more sense to me when trained people like (cops) to use a common slang phrase that has referred to policemen for years—are allowed to carry and show guns. I meant no offense by referring to policemen as COPs—whatever the official derivations of the word—is use is generally part of part of everyday language.
The Manchin-Toomey bill was one of the most reasonable gun bills ever proposed, and its “expanded background checks” referred only to appropriate screening of online sales and purchases at gun shows—where dealers are free to accept cash without filing a check or credit card payment, so there is then no ability to trace who sells and who purchases them at such events. Was Senator Toomey also ignorant of the bill’s intent even though he was given a A rating by the NRA for his pro-gun legislation? I think not! The only remaining problems were finicky disagreements about terminology which could have been resolved by civilized men, even without the NRA breathing down their necks!
About DUIs. Obviously I was referring to fourth amendment rights concerning unreasonable searches and seizures and I am amazed that you did not get this! It makes much more sense to me, to check the background of those who purchase dangerous weapons, rather than to stop a citizen who is NOT drunk, NOT swerving, and only has a broken tail light (like me)—I am not saying it shouldn’t be done, but it is certainly easy to use a fourth amendment argument to question its legality. You are also very lucky to live in a state which carefully monitors and arrests drunken drivers. But obviously we don’t all live in Virginia, since in many areas the daily papers are full of stories about someone who is still driving even after 3 DUI convictions. And, without police vigilance, many convicted drunks would continue to get by with disobeying the law. And, yes, your checks about a person’s criminal history, mental illness issues, or being under a protective order, are exactly the things I approve of. The first two are often missed in sloppy background checks. I don’t know why you seem to think that my support of checking for these things means that I am giving my approval for stopping someone for being black, Jewish, oriental, female, etc. I am implying nothing of the kind! But I don’t suppose you will ever get the argument about who should be checked,being completely consistent with public protection arguments!
I should’ve known that if I mentioned something like rocks and cars, not being real weapons that you would bring up knives. so if I must, let me say first that knives are not nearly as dangerous a weapon as semi-automatic weapons—don’t believe me? Okay lets face each other with ten or fifteen feet between, you can use the knife of your choice and i will have a fully loaded magazine with 30 rounds—we can then attack at the word go, and see who is injured more severely! Besides knives are often checked at metal detectors, such as in the lines at airplane gates? And there are many more relatively harmless uses for knives that are made for many peaceful purposes—certainly more than any weapon that fires metal projectiles at hundred or thousand of feet per second and is capable of bringing down an enemy thousands of feet away. Try that one with a knife! So, please don’t continue to minimise the potential for harm by guns by making analogies using many kinds of common objects—it is an argument as bogus as a three dollar bill!
Sure many people like you do not join organizations like the NRA,
but much of the arguments you propose come straight from their political playbook. And there ARE many gun loving people who do not share the views of the NRA which has really become a political lobbying group for Congressional legislative influence?
So, think again about some of my arguments!
Whew, I’m finally done. Do you now want me to be sworn in by a judge just to express these reasonable opinions?
I just wanted to correct my sentence near the end of the fourth paragraph in my most recent post. It should read, “However, I have heard enough rants online and in digital journals T0 decide that many fanatics also exist.” Sorry it was just too much not to correct!
The most interesting point regarding guns vs. knives as weapons is this:
Of all the tools every invented since the beginning of time, only four were created with the express purpose of killing another living being. They are the spear, the bow and arrow, the sword, and the gun. Knives, axes, etc., were invented for other non-lethal, non-weapon purposes, but were adapted as weapons later.
Spears and bows were created first for hunting, and only later were adapted for war. The sword and the gun, however, were created to be weapons of war from the start, having no other useful purpose.When they were later adapted for “self-defense” it was only because their lethality made them an effective deterrent.
(In fact, the gun was deliberately created to kill heavily armored knights, whose breastplates especially had become too thick for swords, spears, or arrows to penetrate.)
Thanks for the historical information. I completely agree!
You’re welcome.
This is why the whole thing about defending guns by saying that (fill in the blank) also kills people is a big fat red herring. Guns are designed to kill. Baseball bats and automobiles are not.
I think it’s quite admirable that you’re unwilling to take anything online at face value without verification. I wish more people would follow that example, and I would have no need to write this blog. But if you believe that almost everyone online lies, then you must have had a very bizarre series of online experiences. Not even I believe that, and part of my motivation for writing this blog is that the Internet has become a swamp of misinformation. As for mistrusting a website with a “political agenda”, that’s irrelevant here. I don’t have a political agenda, and in fact I’m very weary of discussing politics and hope in the near future to more or less leave it behind for weightier matters.
Mr. Vazquez,
I thought I should add an extra comment about your last rebuttal posted in response to mine.
It is true that the Colorado theatre shooter, (Holmes I think) did not buy his gun online. And it is normally difficult to do that. However he did purchase tons of ammunition online, and his Apartment was a virtual stockpile of weapons and Ammunition. It is apparently not as difficult to buy large amounts of ammunition on the internet. I would personally say, that the ability to purchase all of this ammo, is also something that should require background checks.
As far as his purchase of a semi-automatic rifle legitimately, and at local gun store, the general consensus is that he was able to pass a background check because the presence of his mental illness evaluations could not lawfully be revealed. So, perhaps allowing authorities and professional people to raise red flags about potentially risky people would help a great deal, and the NRA was right on board with that one. And also about helping to treat the mentally ill–no one denies that. However there are a number of underground networks on the web from which purchases of any kinds of weapons can be arrange. One method of selling guns involves sending them one piece at a time, so they will go through customs without raising alarms. There are also ways to keep one’s identity virtually undetectable by using sophisticated encryption techniques that are constructed so as to never be decoded.
Buyers can also use electronic currency which pays for weapons without leaving a trace—build a better mousetrap and people will use it—ban online sales and, people will find away to get around the ban anyway!
Anyway, I’d like to leave a link for an article about these underground black markets where anyone with enough money and reasonable computer savvy can buy any weapon of his or her choice, in whatever quantity they might want. It is extremely difficult to regulate these markets, but I am not sure about what kinds of purchases are banned on conventional internet websites. It would seem that different areas and different states might have different laws about online sales. I would hate to think there are few restrictions in force, so as far as i’m concerned, the idea of having adequate background checks is also of paramount concern.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/inside-the-secret-online-marketplace-for-illegal-weapons/12402
Talk to you later,
Beats the hell out of me. I’ve experienced the same problem, and I need to get a geek friend to look into it for me.
Does your website have a contact page? I’m having a tough time locating it but, I’d like to
shoot you an e-mail. I’ve got some ideas for your
blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great blog and I look forward to seeing it improve
over time.
You may email me at propagandaprofessor@yahoo.com
Something to pick at! http://www.youtube.com/embed/6-3X5hIFXYU
T.
Tom,
You can’t be serious. first of all, China is limiting parents to have only one child per household in an attempt to solve their population crisis,. I daresay this will not eliminate the large number of chinese citizens or Buddhists, confucius followers, or any other popular faith. Certainly 25 years of this birth policy will not wipe out all of China’s citizens, and, if a larger amount of time greatly shrunk the population, what’s is to stop the government from cancelling such a law? Presently Americans are having fewer children due to financial and cultural changes. But if the population of WASPs is ever threatened by these trends, our government could also easily provide incentives to start rapidly multiplying again.
You also make the mistake of implying that every Muslim Child born to every Muslim parent, will unthinkingly continue with the Islamic faith without any deviance. This is certainly not true of Islam, Christianity of any other major faith. We are not all mindless robots that unquestioningly continue in our parents tradition. Sometimes we decide for ourselves.
The ominous tone of the video, seems to convey the feeling that people of the Muslim faith are some sort of cancerous growth that slowly steals the souls of the other “correct” religions. I feel no doubt that the vast majority of muslims are not extremists and are not scheming to take over the world—not by their population numbers or elsewise. If you believe so then let me suggest that it is your own narrow religious viewpoint that makes you thinks that way–not anything in actually reality. But then, you are probably too gratified with your own special, misunderstood and secret beliefs in other greater truths—just like Osama Bin Laden!
You make it sound like evil Islamists are hiding under our beds, ready to take over our bodies like sinister pod people from outer space…. NOT!
Without trying to officially question the specific math in your comment I am already confident that most of it is false or misleading.
Thank God that Christians in the good old Crusades days struggled (by the sword) to kill any unbelievers who might “defile” the Holy land–while drenching it in blood! They continued this effort at cultural genocide for several hundred years around the 11th to 13th centuries.
Views like yours threaten to forever close the minds of all humanity in regards to their other fellow men. i didn’t think you actually fell for this kind of thing. Are you really serious?
This is not essentially my view, I merely put it up for discussion. My belief is that human reproduction tends to be self limiting in advanced societies but in cultures, not limited by the climate in which they live, population will tend to increase exponentially when food, medicine and water are plentiful and where the object of reproduction is to secure the means of survival. T.
Tom,
I certainly hope that your intent was not to spread anti-muslim propaganda! The website you provided a link to, could have represented a very similar anti-jewish message made by HItler. Even the heavily dramatic voice reeked with an ominous warning about those Godless Muslims who only want to spread their faith by the sword! There are many serious and meaningful Ideas about what constitutes the evolution of human intelligence. Prejudice and fear, are generally meant to be overcome in order for our race to prosper, not to take an irrational hold on our sanity!
Wow. I guess if we don’t want to be conquered by Muslims, we’d better get busy screwing like crazy!
I’ve done my bit, three children and two grandchildren all brought up to be good atheists! T.
I always look forward to each new article the POP publishes. I’m also glad I discovered this site.
who ARE you People ? — grins– DERRUFO
Thanks for every other informative website. Where else could I am getting that
kind of information written in such a perfect way?
I’ve a project that I am just now running on, and I have been at the glance out for such info.
Americans should just turn in their guns, it’s worked out great for the Cambodian people, the Chinese people, the Russian people , the Armenian people, the Ugandan people, etc.
Ah, a good old tried and true soundbite. And totally off track.
You’re admitting that it is true. That’s progress.
And, there is no “track” in a discussion like this. Or there are an infinite number of “tracks”.
My “tried and true” was a (rather tongue in cheek) reference to the well-worn soundbite. It was not a comment on its value or validity. That’s a rather profound observation that there are an infinite number of tracks one could take from any discussion. But my point was that what happened in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or any of the other places people keep mentioning has any relevance to anything happening in the U.S. Which was what prompted me to write this article in the first place.
Mr. Vazquez,
I won’t try to comment on every point in your most recent post, but after doing a little online research, I thought I would further address your claim that everyone who commits gun crimes does so only after prior convictions or criminal involvement. At least as a policeman you claim you are not aware of any such cases, and have challenged me to produce evidence of some.
What I found in addition to information concerning various myths about gun uses and regulations, is several studies which addressed the claim that gun crimes are only committed by those who already have criminal convictions for gun crimes, or, by those who have some prior experience with “criminal involvement.” However, many gun studies do specifically include statistics about people who have never had a criminal conviction, or any other kinds of criminal involvements.
Various studies including one done by Garen Wintemute–an MD and practicing emergency medicine physician who also is the Director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of california–Davis–points out the fact that even some people without any kind of criminal records or criminal involvement do later commit gun crimes. I was not surprised that the total number of those people, is much less than the numbers of those with prior convictions or are under criminal indictments who commit crimes and even repeat them later–that only makes sense (pardon the word) because those who are willing to commit crimes in the first place, are obviously more likely to commit other crimes, and, presumably, do not have the same personalities as those having little or no criminal records, yet Wintemute’s study does reveals that nearly 2% of those with no criminal records commit an offense less than one year after purchasing a weapon. And, after the 15 year length of the study, during which those doing the research, accessed California’s automated handgun purchase files, they found that nearly 10% of these previously respectable and law-abiding citizens had indeed, committed another offense. And, after considering all the variables like age, race and gender, the overall rate of offenses from those WITH prior criminal histories, was 3.7 times greater than those who had no criminal records or involvements, at the time of their gun purchases.
Even if only 2% of the Nation’s 80 million estimated gun owners–about 1,600,000 people–do not have prior criminal record–and this number may not be scientifically significant–it is a general example of just how many people can purchase guns, and that, among them, many will commit crimes even after buying their guns for the first time and without having any criminal record or offenses.
I looked at several other websites which confirmed the presence of at least 2% of first time gun buyers who were without records at that time, but who did commit gun crimes later. So, while crimes of passion do not happen in large numbers, nonetheless, a significant group of law abiding citizens do purchase guns and commit gun crimes with no previous records, or, “criminal involvement.”
Conservative pro-gun sites tend to quote traditional statistics like those of the so called KLECK “study,” which was really derived from a very unscientific telephone survey,and, typically refer to themselves with names involving words like “the real truth,” or “the plain facts,” or others invoking patriotic themes. The POP has already poked many holes in their claims as well as their illogical statistics. He has posted these arguments in his Feb. 11th, 2012 blog, and I suggest that anyone who thinks that a lack of gun regulations actually reduces crimes rates, should read that article again–and acknowledge the results derived by using simple math.
An article in Wikipedia about the findings of gun studies and the effects ballistic weapons have on crime, points out the limitations of research pertaining to gun crimes. Some of these include the fact that homicides are relatively infrequent and that no solid control methods are available. So many unknowns exist, that sometimes, researcher reach wrong conclusions based on factors which may not directly be the result of, or a response to, gun laws. Even ebbs and surges in gun crimes may have taken place with or without, gun regulations!
Most Fact checking sites note the uncertainty of commonly quoted data, and that they thus, cannot decisively arrive at definite conclusions–one way or the other.
During the ban on assault weapons during Clinton’s administration, the NRA managed to gain support for provisions that prohibited the CDC ( the Center for Disease Control) from promoting or advocating gun control research And, two years later this included a ban on all gun research funded by the Department of Health and Human Services. Obviously this put a damper on any serious studies designed to objectively examine gun control’s effectiveness. During this time researcher were restrained from even talking about gun violence at medical and scientific conferences!
In 2013 Obama instructed the CDC to resume funding studies on gun violence, but just the existence of such previously biased restraints and prohibitions, begs the Question–what are gun enthusiast are afraid of? If they are so sure about the reliability of studies which correlate dropping crime rates with less gun regulations, then why object when the other guy just wants to study this issue. Even if his or her other point of view is eventually proven wrong, don’t we all have the first amendment right to look for the truth, and possibly refute any false claims that may not be true? Are gun advocates really being fair when they wilfully suppress the free acquisition of knowledge?
Mr. Vazquez, you have a perfect right to your take on this issue, and some of your points may be true, but, as far as claiming that no one commits gun crimes without having committed previous offenses, or having previous “criminal involvement”–you are just plain wrong!
D. Boomgars says : November 23, 2013 at 3:40 pm
You are full of what the bull drops! I am almost 95. I was a Dutch and I lived in Nazi Germany from 1934 until 1939. I know that what you and your Democrats say is a bunch of lies. You could not own a firearm unless you were a specific type of party member or a member of an “approved organization” under Hitler. Jews could not even own knives other than kitchen knives. The laws there meant nothing. Firearm laws were very vague, so the Nazi government made up many many regulations to fill in the spaces. Hitler used gun registries for many things. He also used them to disarm almost everyone beginning in 1938. I think you are a liar, but maybe just a committed socialist from what you write. Hitler also did not allow anyone in countries he captured to own a gun of any kind. You just plain don’t know what you are talking about. Maybe he never made that speech, but if you know anyone who says they had a gun as a civilian in the times of Nazi Germany, then they are either a liar or were a Nazi party member.
Also to become a citizen, I had to study American history and the founding of America. Mr. Anonymous you are so wrong about the Second Amendment. You need to read the Federalist Papers. These are the same men who debated and authored the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was for personal ownership and carrying of firearms. It is clearly stated as so. It is to protect America fro people like Hitler and maybe you too Mr. Anonymous.
It seems that you like to shade things with lies and half truths. You really are a bull dropper and a liar as you twist facts and spout untruths.
If you want people to believe that you’re a 95-year-old former resident of Nazi Germany, it might be a good idea to cut out the Democrat/ socialist/ commie crap.
“The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general.”
If it’s not gun control then what the hell is it. So with your logic in mind why not ban gun ownership for all Americans registered as Democrats?
remember kids
when you refrain specific groups of your population from owning gun, it’s not gun control!
liberals, walking on their heads since the 60’s
Good example of a straw man. Whether or not a regulation or set of regulations can be classified as “gun control” is hardly the relevant issue here.
From the National Review Online……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.
Advertisement
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.
The TRUTH has no agenda…………And the owner of this blog has an obvious agenda. Hitlers gun ban is NOT a myth unless you the audience have been indoctrinated with revised history and therefore ignorant of real history. Hitler was a National Socialist [German acronym — Nazi]. The current people in power in Washington are also National Socialists or Nazi. Oh not the German type they are the new American type. That is why gun registration is very important to them.
vpertoso,
At the present I will not re-butt any of your points except to say that many of them are addressed in the POP’s article. What seems so bizarre to me though, is that many of those who strictly interpret the second amendment are dead sure that a government takeover which includes the confiscation of all personal weapons, is a real and immanent danger in this country. As far as I know the current administration has never pushed for complete surrender of personal weapons–recently focusing only on improving background checks. I also can’t remember any administration that has advocated for complete confiscations, although even conservatives like Nixon expressed aversion to easily available guns.
Like most people, I would ask you to lay out a realistic scenario under which Obama or any ‘American president would actually be able to get away with such a dictatorial assault of personal freedoms. For any number of reasons I doubt that this could even happen, under any circumstances, including the balance of power in our government?
[…] What’s important here, though, is the context of these laws. First, these laws were in one sense an attempt to portray the demands of the Treaty of Versailles. The Weimar Republic didn’t actually meat all of the demands set forth, much to the advantage of Hitler later on. Second, there was a lot of concern during the Weimar Republic’s reign of a government takeover, as there were a lot of political fights taking place between socialist factions, Communists, and Fascists. Indeed, Hitler attempted a coup in Munich in 1923. What this means, in effect, is that Hitler didn’t take people’s guns away as many pro-gun enthusiasts proclaim, indeed his own government did so prior to his coming to power. It’s a likelihood that those strict gun laws were put in place to prevent people like Hitler from coming to power. But it wasn’t just Hitler that they were trying to protect against. The Nazi Party wasn’t even recognized until the German Referendum of 1929, and between the mid 1920’s, and Hitler’s ascension in 1933, there were a lot of street battles going on. [1][2] […]
This is very interesting, You are a very skilled blogger.
I have joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking
more of your fantastic post. Also, I have shared your website in
my social networks!
Well if you IGNORE ALL OF THE HISTORY BOOKS AND ALL OF THE BIOGRAPHIES WHICH STATE THOSE MEN DID INDEED TAKE AWAY THE CITIZENS GUNS, THEN I GUESS THE KOOKS ARE RIGHT! THERE IS EVIDENCE! LOL!!!
Are you kidding me?! What kind of nut-jobs go around trying to rewrite WELL-KNOWN History?! Are you lot really that insane?! My father was a Huge Fan of History! He’d read dozens of books about the wars and the dictators and he did mention MORE THAN ONCE about how Easy it was for them to take away the rights from the citizens once they disarmed them!
So nice try! What a bunch of LIARS YOU ARE! And no! I don’t think my “All-Caps” proves anything! The words themselves do! So don’t babbling about HOW I WROTE THIS! A favorite (lame-azz) trick the left tries, AND FAILS AT!
Just when you think you’ve heard it all. You claim to have read ALL the history books? How about the ones that said Columbus “discovered” America and George Washington was the first president and the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4? Those are my favorites.
Maybe you should check the archives and laws of Germany at the time and you will find that in the early 20’s all guns were removed from the German people, then the ban was slightly lifted because people were starving to death and the government needed means to help feed them, so civilians were allowed to have rifles…later the ban was lifted for all and then Hitler made it legal for all civilians to have guns EXCEPT the Jews. Oh and anyone possessing a handgun had to have it registered with the local police….do some research and learning on your own before you believe what you think you heard your Dad say!
[…] out phony quotes and fabricated facts that turn up in political debates left and right, also tackled the supposed Hitler quote, saying, “Hitler never made such a speech in 1935. Nor is there any record that he ever spoke […]
are there many guns in china , north korea , russia ,,,,you bet not ,,,except for those the elite have and the military ,,,,,,when the ruwandans had thier guns taken by the un ,,,the un gave the guns and weapons to the killing squads per kofi annans fax order,,,,,,,,,,,the un has a civilian small arms disarmament program for the US …written in 61 when kennedy was in office
Love guns ……love meat…….and love Jesus!!!! spoons don’t make people fat.people make themselves fat,the same way if people didn’t kill each other with guns they would use / or find something else to do the job!These are the facts ….to have peace you need War,if we didn’t eat meat or hunt game the overpopulation of animals would destroy the habitat (look into the managed control of elephants in the Kruger national Park South Africa )….What would have happened if Hitler was excepted into Art School?And last but not least next time you see a Soldier that’s been deployed stop and take the time to thank him/or her….don’t sit back and enjoy the freedom and protection the Military provides and then question the way they provide it!!
The “spoons” bit is a faulty argument that I’ll be addressing in a couple of future posts.
Captain America,
Spoons don’t make people fat, but if people eat lettuce all day long, they won’t gain weight anyway. They need protein and carbs, to do the job correctly just like those prone to do mass shootings, might want to purchase hundred round drum magazines for weapons that can help them accomplish their goals as easily as possible.
As I see it, the real issue is not whether anyone should be allowed to own guns, but rather, what are the limits on any freedom when pubic safety is involved and the government needs to play some role to provide security. If we take away guns people may indeed become less safe, but if we make no attempts to add any fundamental regulations to protect us, predatory shooters may become more easily armed and make us feel even less safe still. And, no President could succeed in confiscating all of our weapons but rather, would become politically dead meat at the first instance he tried!
The government already plays a role. There are already thousands of laws on the books dealing with firearms. Were you under the impression that the government was taking no “role” whatsoever?
Anonymous,
Yes there are already laws on the book, many of them differing State to State, but it was only recently that the Manchin-Toomey Bill, described by Toomey as one of the least invasive gun regulation bills every proposed, was scuttled due to several Democrats that didn’t have the nerve to stand up to to the gun Lobby. Senator Toomey had an A rating from the NRA, and was amazed that his bill didn’t pass. The major difference about it was that it provided for stricter measure at gun shows and minor changes in background checks. And, because most legislation has been basically toothless, we still see many weapons being purchased easily online, even though private sellers are required to exercise sound judgment about selling to questionable buyers.
That’s because these online violators can hardly ever be identified as selling weapons irresponsibly to such risky buyers.
I don’t buy the idea that laws can not change behavior and cannot make a difference in reducing violence perpetrated with guns. If that’s the case, we ought to abolish police forces, the organized Military, and give up all attempts to institute laws against anything—like making had guns available for purchase from vending machines like bottles of coke?
Critics like to stress that very few convictions ever come from red flags raised by background checks, but there is no clear way of counting violent gun events that never happened, since buyer who were flagged may have been dissuaded from purchasing from dealers, simply because they set off a legal alarm. And, yet others may have not even tried to purchase a weapon that they otherwise might have sought, just because background checks discouraged them from trying. Last but not least, only a few actual convictions, are a few better convictions than just ignoring the problem completely.
I don’t think there are a lot of big things we can do at the moment, that will change the problem overnight, but there are certainly many small measures that can be taken, which could help prevent some of the most serious offenses, while allowing gun owners the exercise teh right to self-defense,
Hey, you used to write excellent, but the last few posts have been kinda
boring… I miss your super writings. Past
several posts are just a little bit out of track!
Come on!
I don’t think the POP isn’t a good writer anymore. Its just that his choices of topics recently have not proven as intriguing, to as many readers. However that doesn’t mean that these topics are not important or unnecessary to discuss. We just all have our own priorities when we choose to comment on any internet blog.
I understand that Hitler’s gun law that was passed in 1938 loosened some restrictions, but it also specifically restricted Jews or Jewish owned business from having guns. I think that warrants mentioning in your article. (This may have already been addressed in other comments, I didn’t read them all since I’m about 3 years late to the party). I agree with you that propaganda, not gun control, is what led to the demise of the 11 million holocaust victims, but the gun law restricting certain people from obtaining them is a pretty significant indicator of what Hitler’s intentions were…and of course hindsight is 20/20…so why let history repeat itself? I will always be suspicious of gun regulations…just in case.
Jews lost their citizenship very early on, only citizens could own guns.
[…] https://propagandaprofessor.net/2011/09/26/the-myth-of-hitlers-gun-ban/ […]
[…] sudden spike in readership. Which means there’s been a sudden spike in people checking out my post “The Myth Of Hitler’s Gun Ban”. Because in the discussions about the shooting, […]
[…] bothers me. Out of 162 posts that I have written to date, the most popular by far is the one titled The Myth Of Hitler’s Gun Ban. And when I say by far, I mean really, really by far. More precisely, it receives more than twice […]
You mock the message of gun rights advocates which is don’t let the government take away your guns because terrible things can happen if they do. In the example given for this Hitler’s name is used allegorically. Whether he did the actual disarming does not matter. What matters is it was done by the government and terrible things did follow. You could and should have know that but chose to ignore it to advance your own (not so) hidden anti-gun sentiment. Gun hatters love to find some inconsistency, no matter how inconsequential, to discredit those who support the Second Amendment.
You state that Germany was won by propaganda not gunpowder. Not true it was won by both. You seem to forget that the Nazis started out as a small fringe minority and physically fought their way into prominence with the Storm Troopers who were (illegally) armed thugs. While propaganda played a major part, it was more about force in the earlier years. A lot of people died at the hands of the Storm Troopers During Hitler’s rise many more opposed than supported him If the German people were legally armed (not limited to those having good reason to own a gun as defined by the government) perhaps the Storm Troopers would have been defeated and Hitler never would have been named Chancellor and able to seize power when Hindenburg died . That an armed citizenry would have prevented it from happening is a matter for debate. We’ll never know.
Allegorically?????????
Whew, I have a feeling this must be the first 5 chapters of a book.
“or that the so-called “constitutional right” to be armed is founded not on what the Second Amendment actually says, but on a highly subjective speculation about what the framers were thinking when they wrote it. ”
In my opinion it is nothing to with “what they were thinking” and more to do with the the thought and Written word and grammar rules of that time. If a student wrote that sentence today, it would be marked as incorrect. First of all, “well regulated” had nothing to do with the government controlling arms as the “extreme” left argues. The historic meaning of “well regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter.
It referred to something of being in proper working order, calibrated correctly, functioned as in today’s wording, “a well oiled machine”. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not the intent of that phrase.
Second,. I’m sure that you heard and suspiciously avoided the the reason the court came to the conclusion they did. It seems to me that most of legal writing and for most amendments of that time contained a prefatory clause. The well regulated or the prefatory clause was the introduction and was also used in the other amendments of that time. The operative clause was the key and shows it as an individual right. I’m pretty sure the court looked into grammatical rules and historical phases of the time before reaching it’s conclusion.
However, I agree with you on the fact that the Nazi’s did little if anything to control guns for German citizens (Jews lost their citizenship very early on). In fact a law was passed to lower gun ownership to 18 (easier to train those already familiar with guns for military service). Any gun control laws were already in effect before the Nazi’s took power. In part to keep guns out of the hands of groups like the Nazis.
That is what got me interested in your post. Somehow it seems to have turned into a rant about gun control. IMO
Mr. Vazquez,
Since there is no space specifically available to answer your last post about protecting the privacy of the mental ill, I am responding way at, what appears to be at the bottom of this very long thread.
I am aware that this is tricky territory and that not only are rights to privacy involved, but also first amendment issues–i.e. No one should be judged insane for reporting feelings of extreme anger to his or her therapist, and no one wants their private matters out there for the world to see. I am just saying that there may be ways for psychological councilors to raise red flags about certain patients which do NOT lead to public disclosure of any mental or emotional problems. I think this is important because very often those counseling people such as the Aurora theater mass shooter, express, only after it is way too late, professional concerns about someone who later commits mass murders. What I am suggesting is that therapist who are gravely concerned about the mental states of any of their patients, might officially raise a red flag that is then available if someone tries to buy a weapon, and undergoes a background check. This could happen with only the knowledge of a registered gun dealer, who is then also bound by privacy requirements not to let anyone’s private information, be known or discussed with anyone else.
Yes it is stretching an individual’s privacy rights, but many times therapists and doctors do feel honest concerns that they legally cannot express, and then feel guilty after someone like Holmes actually does the deed. Also any red flags raised at times of a purchase, might be subject to a period of time, say one week. That then, may allows a dealer to check for anything that causes significant concerns, and if he/she does refuse to make a sale, the dealer and the therapist who know of such private information could be legally constrained from sharing it with anyone else—just like the therapist already is!
I know some someone afflicted with bi-polar illness that spends entire weeks without sleep, until finally breaking from reality and becoming completely psychotic. However under the law, such a person (at least at one time), could not be committed to a psychiatric unit, unless they voluntarily consented to comply. And this is really a troublesome situation in which, due to privacy concerns, a patient may hurt themselves of others, or potentially do both. Friends and family who might try and watch over them in private homes, must fall sleep after a day or two, and thus cannot be sure if their loved ones will wander outside and be hurt by traffic or some other situation where their psychotic state prevents them from understanding what is really happening–which may very well result in something that hurts them or others. They may be submitted to an evaluation, but in one case I know of, the person was given a “sanity test,” and then sent back home because they knew who the President was, and that it was night instead of day?
There is a point where insisting on someone’s rights may truly endanger that person of another. So, when common sense, or apparent symptoms, suggest that someone should not be able to buy a gun, or drive down a freeway, etc. And if potentially catastrophic situations can be prevented by simply raising an honest professional concern, then by God, we should be able to find a way to prevent those with disturbing symptoms from doing or buying, such dangerous things.
Then there’s the fact that, since State laws concerning the raising of psychological red flags vary from State to state, one may raise a red flag in one state but not in another–which is basically what happened with the Virginia tech shooter.
Obviously we need a national data base, which is available for officials all around our country, and which will report the existence of red flags in each state. Doing such a thing to prevent mass murder, does not seem too extreme, and will NOT somehow make every gun owner vulnerable to confiscation or prosecution, purely on the basis of having a hot temper. Professionals are quite skilled at evaluating their patients, and there ought to be a common sense way to raise a red flag when someone like Holmes receives cases of ammunition and body armor delivered to his front door. Such a situation should at least prompt a non-criminal inquiry by local law enforcement agents which might later be understood as a significant issue concerning his psychiatric condition, and then, provide the person who administers a background check with information that will remain undisclosed to others. It doesn’t have to result in a refusal to sell, it might just provide a dealer with an option to sell or not, according to their own instincts about the information available to them. In many cases those selling weapons online, are required to refuse a sale if the person who wants to buy raises some concerns about his or her sanity or possible criminal past. But often a seller just wants to make a good online sale and will overlooks those red flags deliberately. In the case of someone legally selling weapons, it’s more likely they will think twice after being privy to a psychiatrist’s or a psychologist’s concerns. They may decide to sell anyway, but at least they will have been given food for thought, and some info that might result in disclosing some very important info that will prevent the next mass shooting.
Sure there are many criticisms that might be raised about any changes in our background check requirements, but would it really be so impossible to make use of such common sense warnings before selling someone semi-automatic weapons, case after case of ammo, and/or body Armour? If we simply adopt some stricter standards which prevent someone who raises simple red flags, from easily buying a weapon, without first satisfying some basic psychological scrutiny or adhering to some government oversight, (like we did with machine guns), then what is our rational excuse when we allow the present system to go unchecked and unregulated—in ways that would keep sensitive information away from public knowledge, yet prevent those who cause psychological concern, from purchasing 100 round magazines or perhaps killing up to sixty victims, in one minute with a semi-automatic weapon?
As someone who has served for years as a police officer, I can answer this post very quickly. Though long, your post is repetitive, and its basic argument is “Psychiatrists/Counselors should be able to raise legal red flags that would prevent a person from acquiring a firearm”, which translates to “Psychiatrists/counselors should be able to prevent a person from acquiring a firearm”. My answer to that, and the answer of the US Constitution to that, is HELL NO. Not just no. But hell no. I already addressed this in my previous post. But I will repeat it here.
Our system ensures that no private individual can limit another person’s legal rights, or civil rights. Only a COURT can do that. This is why a person cannot be incarcerated on the advice of a private individual, but only by a court. By the same token, only a court should be able to limit a person’s ability to exercise his 2nd amendment right, not a private individual or individuals. This is so obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of the US constitution and legal system that it is almost comical that some need to have it pointed out.
And no, I am completely against the idea that any police officer, or “official” as you put it, would have access to any person’s psychiatric record, just as I would object to their having access to their medical records, or any other kind of personal record that has not been released by a court. This is common sense of the most basic kind.
To say that knowledge that one’s seeking counseling or treatment would become known to police would, to say the least, inevitably cause many people to NOT seek treatment, is again so common sense. I can’t think of anything that would dissuade me or anyone else I know more, from seeking psychological counseling, than the knowledge that doing so will be reported to police. There are already policies in place that ensure that petitions to courts may already be made by mental health professionals and family members if they feel they are needed for certain individuals, and if those courts grant the petitions, the individuals in question are institutionalized and they become known publically and legally as being mentally deficient– i.e. they can no longer pass background checks. This is how it should be.
And finally, the killers in San Bernardino never sought counseling, nor did anyone even suggest that they needed counseling in the least. The vast majority of murderers I have investigated at no time required, or even were suggested to have required, counseling. So this conversation is irrelevant anyway.
I cannot state my objection to this post more strongly. Again, common sense, common sense. And again, only a person who has been ADJUDICATED BY A COURT to be mentally deficient can be barred from possession of firearms. And this is as it should be.
Mr. Vazquez,
The essence of the problem can be summed up in this comment from your above post:
“Our system ensures that no private individual can limit another person’s legal rights, or civil rights. Only a COURT can do that. This is why a person cannot be incarcerated on the advice of a private individual, but only by a court. By the same token, only a court should be able to limit a person’s ability to exercise his 2nd amendment right, not a private individual or individuals.”
I said nothing about incarceration, and nothing about limiting 2nd amendment rights, only that concerned professional counselors be allowed to raise read flags as part of the background check system. Your contention that no one is allowed to deny a person’s rights, overlooks the fact that a gun dealer already has the ability to report important red flags anyway when he submits someone to a back ground check, and can begin the process of making authorities aware of concerns in the persons background, that then are considered by the courts and the legal system which then decide to limit rights. And every individual still has other rights at their disposal–have you ever heard of the right to appeal a decision? This does not deny the buyer his 2nd amendment rights—it only in reports some clear red flags that authorities can later decide to act on. If our laws do not recognize this clear distinction then they should be changed since that is also something our legal system can also do. To prevent counselors from mentioning concerns about a patient they may consider violent, is ridiculous—especially since, we currently allow the police and courts to act on reasonable suspicions even though the truth may not yet be objectively verifiable. And since the incredible surveillance of anyone considered to be planning a terrorist act, involves tons of discretion on the part of Homeland Security, and relies on large amounts of anecdotal evidence as part of its normal investigative authority, as ordinary citizens we are constantly urged to keep our eyes open and report anything that may be suspicious. If any information is gleaned by authorities who get tips they can then monitor suspects, or decide to let them be, depending on what that information is or isn’t. And since the courts may persuade those with knowledge of a defendant’s behavior which is presently held in confidence by Priests Rabbis, psychologists, or next door neighbors, why not allow the same sort of optional regards concerning those with questionable behaviors even before a violent crime is committed—rather after a trial is held, and after the fact behind such a crime come out anyway?
I also stipulated that gun dealers have the OPTION of personally deciding whether or not to raise a red flag when submitting someone to a background check. That would motivate them to report serious concerns but not to do so over matters which they don’t consider urgent. And if having such discretion is left up to them, then no one is being compelled to supply personal information against their will and cannot do so legally! And thus an applicants privacy is kept private unless the authorities find real cause to be concerned. So even a therapist who provides his or her concerned opinions, is not supplying legally damning information–only concerns which will be considered if they are serious enough to catch the eyes and ears of authorities. If such input is sometimes supplied after the deed is done, and when a trial is already in progress, then why not allow it beforehand when several dozen people have not yet been murdered or injured?
I also said nothing about the shootings in San Bernardo, but if the perpetrators were able to maintain such an image of normalcy, so that no one suspected them of anything extreme, then that only underscores the need for anecdotal evidence and the observations provided by neighbors—not to determine arrests or convictions, but merely to give the law a heads up before any crime is committed. And though legal or institutional hoops may deny a therapist of minister the privilege of offering what is essentially the same kind of anecdotal evidence having to do with the behavior of someone they council, then why not eliminate some of those hoops? I don’t know for sure, but I think someone who is sick enough to commit such a crime has usually already decided not to let anyone to know about them and won’t motion the to,or decide to consult a therapist about them anyway. Its the people who have not yet decided to do what they potentially could do who are sane enough to seek the advice of a therapist, and who might raise concerns among professionals who would then relay those concerns to authorities, but no one would be forced to provide such information and so no one’s private info would need to be revealed, unless it was serious enough to raise red flags for gun dealers or cops–and then only if further investigations prompted a sale to be refused. As I said the Virginia Tech shooter did have psychiatric history in other states, but it was never reported in his background check in Virginia, where he purchased his weapons and executed his rampage. So lack of coordination between differing state systems is also something that needs to be changed.
I remember exchanging comments with you before Mr. Vazquez and I know you pride yourself on having extensive knowledge of the legal system and like to chew our other commenters who disagree with your opinions. But why go there without first considering whether the legal system might sometimes need to be changed? I do not have law degree, but I know that courts rule on legal matters all the time, and can be instrumental in changing law that are now on the books. You may have reams of information at your finger tips that makes you think progress on preventing mass shootings is impossible, but consider how often learned scholars on the Supreme Court, passionately disagree with each other despite their experise? Do they know less than you when it comes to deciding what is set in stone, and what laws and procedures might need to be changed or modified? I’m not saying I know better either–I’m just pointing to the fact that laws are made for a reason, and are often changed for good reasons too!
Mr. Vazquez,
This comment of yours confuses the points of my last response:
“Our system ensures that no private individual can limit another person’s legal rights, or civil rights. Only a COURT can do that. This is why a person cannot be incarcerated on the advice of a private individual, but only by a court. By the same token, only a court should be able to limit a person’s ability to exercise his 2nd amendment right, not a private individual or individuals. This is so obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of the US constitution and legal system that it is almost comical that some need to have it pointed out.”
I said nothing about incarceration and nothing about limiting another’s rights. The point of my comment was to point out that, many caring professionals now find their hands bound when they are forced not to make authorities aware of people who are in potentially dangerous states of mind. Such professionals are usually quite skilled at spotting behavior or volatile emotions in patients which can prompt justifiable concerns about whether they are a danger to themselves or others. As part of my suggestions, I noted that a registered gun dealer who is required to do background check, would also be legally limited in that they would not be allowed to reveal personal information about a potential buyer’s state of mind, discovered during a background check, in which a psychologist or religious councilor or some other qualified professional raises a reg flag about. Since a dealer’s responsibility is not to accept or reject a persons eligibility to buy a weapons—only law enforcement officials can ultimately do that—then if a dealer is bound by law not to reveal private professional concerns, (accept to those legal authorities), and they would even have the option to report them or not, how then can any sensitive personal information about an applicant be legally disseminated to the public? It’s true that a dealer may decide to go ahead with a purchase no matter what a psychologist or Minister recommends, but I would guess that after seeing what such professional people say, this might give pause for dealers to consider what they would be risking by not heeding such red flags. And of course, dealers would not be held responsible for any tragic outcome based on personal sales after a legal background check. As it is, dealers are given the benefit of the doubt and way too much leeway anyhow. Consider this paste from the Law Center to prevent gun violence:
“Laws imposing waiting periods require that a specified number of days elapse between the time a firearm is purchased and it is physically transferred to the purchaser. The goals of a waiting period are to: (1) give law enforcement officials sufficient time to perform a background check; and (2) provide a “cooling off” period to help guard against impulsive acts of violence.
There is no federal waiting period. As described below, federal law allows a dealer to deliver a firearm to a purchaser as soon as a background check is completed, or after three business days even if a background check has not been completed. Each year, over 3,000 ineligible persons receive firearms through this default provision. The FBI has determined that in 2012, the number was as high as 3,722.1.The average time it takes for the FBI to determine that illegal purchasers are ineligible to receive firearms is 25 days. 2As a result,to reduce the number of prohibited people who are able to purchase firearms by default. 3. For more information on this issue, see our summary on Background Check Procedures.”
From the information above it seems to me that gun dealers are already given a great deal of leeway and can already sell a gun after three business days, even if a background check has not been completed. And given that the average FBI time to complete background checks is 25 days, that renders the effectiveness of many background checks meaningless anyway. So one would think if a dealer were privy to private information, while legally bound not to reveal it in a public way, and can personally make a sale if he decides the information is not worthwhile, that the legal system could also cut some slack when it comes to professionals who prudently pass along their concerns about an individual’s personal state of mind, as it does for dealers who receive that information? I would also think that a mentally ill person who is afraid to talk to a therapist or someone qualified to council them, may already on the road to doing serious harm to themselves or others. But you must admit that there will be many patients who consent to therapy, and thus have enough sanity to realize they need help. Whether or not they are unstable enough for a psychologist to conclude that they are a risk to the public or themselves, any professional who provides their opinions and observations to authorities would be legally bound NOT to reveal personal information to others, so why shouldn’t the legal system provide a means to tap the information and opinions which might come from those authorities? As it is, priests and psychiatrists who are persuaded to reveal confidential information during a trial, are allowed to break confidentiality rules according to their consciences. So how much better would it be to provide them a legal means to give that kind of a heads up warning before a patient or parishioner actually commits a violent mass shooting? If they never do such a thing, no one need know the advice a therapist provided, and in fact will not be legally allowed to know, or to use that therapist knowledge against someone who commits no crime?
Consider all the anecdotal and circumstantial evidence used by agents in Homeland Security to become aware of, and track anyone who is suspected of being a terrorist. How often are such individuals marked as potential terrorists, revealed as truly being terrorists by authorities—before they commit, or are caught in the act of committing a crime? And how often are we ordinary people urged to report anything suspicious to law enforcement official during times of high security risks? So why can we report a person of Arabic heritage whether they do, or don’t do something suspicious? If we have that option with them, and if our own luggage and shoes can be searched before boarding a plane, then why can’t therapists who treat persons who buy semi-automatic weapons and many boxes of ammunition, as well as body armor etc. not be allowed to tip off authorities without being held culpable for revealing personal, but publicly undisclosed information?
Normally I am a person who supports individual rights and constitutional protections, but there are cases where the laws needs to be changed simply because they are insufficient to do the tasks they were created for. So why can’t they, at least be bent a bit, in order to save lives! The system we have, is too lenient on purchasers and dealers not to mention being overly cumbersome for law enforcement agencies like the FBI, so why should we needlessly tie our own hands when it comes to registering simple concerns from therapists, psychologists, ministers and rabbis, concerning the mental states of those they treat, or provide council for? Can’t the courts themselves be allowed to decide when such information can be released to those who review background checks, and when its inappropriate to publically release it? How much do you know about the private life of John Holmes or Mark David Chapman do you know. How many times have you been provided with access to anything said or done by someone while in therapy—even if it is later revealed to be pertinent to the makings of a good news story about a mass killer?
I also said nothing about the San Bernadio shooters, but the fact that they were able to escape both detection and suspicion while being considered so normal, only underscores the possibility that a health-care professional might have been privy to important personal knowledge about them if it was revealed in confidence during therapy, and which others could not have known. So it is absolutely insane if our legal system ties the hands of all concerned professionals who may be able to provide information that could later save large numbers of people from disaster! I don’t have all the answers either, but I think it would be naive to believe the improbability that no answers at all, can ever be discovered!
I remember discussing gun issues with you before Mr. Vazquez, and I know you pride yourself on having an extensive amount of knowledge about the criminal justice system, and that you also like to chew out other comenters who refuse your accept your self-claimed expertise. This may all be well and good about you, but consider once more the huge number of cases that are ruled on by the SCOTUS, which are decided in five four splits, and the relatively few that reflect unanimous opinions? You may be full of intellectual knowledge which lead you to conclude that nothing can ever be done to keep weapons away from those who should not have them, but we have a history in this country of laws and courts which can, and have change our opinions about gun control and other kinds of controversial issues. And, one of the things our legal system and legislatures are designed for, is to change existing laws by amending them or passing other laws. If you insist that nothing can be done to correct any dubious laws at all, I don’t believe you, and I think you are wrong to unquestionably believe your own opinions about that also! For God’s sake, even local law enforcement personnel are allowed to stop and question people based on “reasonable suspicions”—not proven facts, and they are given ample latitude to do so! If they can violate anyone’s privacy based merely on a hunch, or on the way someone appears, then what is your rational for considering that a psychiatrist cannot be allowed to report a depressed patient who is experiencing violent impulses or urges? You may think such basic personal information is enshrined in gold. But neither you, I, nor the supreme court are NEVER allowed to change our opinions. And if the first amendment guarantees us all the right to think and believe whatever we wish, then why is the example that this right not applicable to hollering FIRE! In a crowed theater, so commonly mentioned? Mass shooters accomplish the same objectives as terrorists when they injure and/or kill dozens of people. And of course, there are ways to restrict access to guns for those who should not have them! How many of us even know if our neighbors have been denied when trying to buy a gun after a background check, (unless they voluntarily tell us)–let alone why they were rejected? If an unscrupulous person gains access to the records of a background check, he or she, may use that information to harm the spotless reputation of another. But if someone gains access to your credit card information, their breach of your security does not require you to prohibit yourself, or let authorities prohibit you, from buying credit cards in the future, or from being exonerated from accusations that you were the one who committed a crime. I use this example as an illustration that any kinds of situations can be prevented from happening in the future—just like any difficult road can lead to positive results with a little freedom to do what is right! So our reluctance to violate simple measures that COULD results in saving lives, should not depend on laws that needlessly prohibit us from providing confidential information, or from sharing knowledge that may prevent catastrophes in the future!
The above comment of mine contains the same basic arguments provided in the one before it. I thought that my first attempt to answer had been lost in cyberspace, so I posted this comment also. As I said, it contains many of my original points (as well as a few more), and it is actually, (in my opinion) written much better. I just thought I should explain why I have two similar comments published right next to each other.
Mr. Johnson
I have not insulted, nor have I said that liberal commenters are intellectually defective. I do not wish to debate anyone whose thesis is based on emotion. By the way, Charlton Heston used the term “from my cold dead hands” as a rally cry to supporters. His arguments for the second amendment were based on sound logic and facts, not emotion. My reference to pointy heads was used to describe people who make their case for Obamacare by citing statistics cut and pasted from websites when the two top arguments against it are we can’t afford it and the government has no business being in the healthcare business. And my reference to financial gain was directed to Obamacare supporters who have a financial interest in perpetuating the law. As I said though, I do not wish to debate healthcare.
You and I have gone around a few times about gun control. Here’s my response to the last go around:
I am not going to argue rates of fire or how many people can be killed per minute or even how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The USSC recently found that the right to bear arms is an individual right. It also found that banning the guns most used for self -defense is unreasonable. People are therefore entitled to use firepower equal to what they would typically be facing in a self-defense situation. As I understand our legal system those two concepts are now settled law and not likely to change. But that won’t stop people like you from trying now will it?
Anyone convicted of a felony is barred by federal law from owning a firearm. The NICS database contains only criminal information. Presently only the mentally ill adjudicated to be dangerous are barred from owning guns. The federal law needs to be changed making it illegal for all mentally ill to own guns and the salient information added to the database. If that had been done, James Holmes and other like him would not have been able to acquire firearms legally. Politicians dodge the issue because they don’t want to be seen as violating privacy rights. So they’d rather pass more gun control bills that don’t solve the problem and/or take away the rights of the law abiding so that they and people like you can feel good about doing something. If you want to really help save lives like you say you do, then push hard for legislation to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
The proposed Arms Trade Treaty has absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about: smuggling untraceable guns from Mexico, Central and South America etc. that are being sold on the black market here. The two are not even remotely connected. Sorry to disappoint you but ratifying that treaty won’t help this problem at all. This is a lack of federal law enforcement. So you should complain to your congressman and senators that the government is not doing its job.
While they once were all for it, Britain has abandoned the traditional idea of self-defense. The 1967 law is still on the books but has become subject to absurd new rules on what you can do and what you are allowed to use for self- defense. What’s happened is self-defense has essentially been made illegal without changing the wording of the law! You if you believe otherwise then you are either not aware of what’s going on over there, or you are seriously deluded. British subjects live at the mercy of their potential attackers. The British government has a website where subjects ask questions. See question 589: http://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm Are there any legal self-defence products that I can buy. Answer: The only fully legal self-defence product … is a rape alarm. Well, that tells it all in a nutshell. The example I gave of Tony Martin happened in 1999. It’s gotten a lot worse since then. In another example three knife-wielding burglars invaded a home in England, tied up the family members and threatened to kill the father. One of the members managed to escape and get help. The family member and his brother returned and inflicted permanent brain damage on one of burglars — a criminal, by the way, with more than 50 previous convictions — using a cricket bat. Authorities arrested the defendants — the victims — and sent them to prison for more than two years. The attacker? He escaped punishment. That’s the kind of tyranny I’m talking about by. People just like you in Britain caused it to happen there, and if people like you in this country get their way the same will happen here. I hope not.
.
You’re still not getting it about gun shows and private gun sales. It was obvious that you didn’t know what you were talking about previously, and you still don’t know what you are talking about. I’ll try one more time. The only difference between a private sale and one made through a dealer is that private sales do not require NICS checks. All applicable state laws apply though. Each state has their own unique paperwork requirements, so a record of the transaction exists at the state level. What you said that there is no record of such transactions is simply not true. You claim to know that illegal gun sales take place at gun shows, but you don’t say how you know that. Even if your claim was true, whatever illegal activity taking place is already illegal. So we don’t need a new law making it more illegal. Incidentally, it is not illegal to accept cash, nor is it illegal to sell a gun in a parking lot. Do you really expect to be taken seriously? You missed my point completely about federal NICS paperwork requirements. This is not about paperwork per se. it’s about the government telling you that you have to buy a private service. The penalties and fines imposed by the BATF for not having the proper paperwork would essentially force private sellers to pay dealers to sell their private property guns. That’s not fair and would set a precedent for the government to do the same with all private property. There is another reason why people would be required to pay dealers. The NICS database was designed for use by licensed dealers only. It is highly unlikely that NICS would be redesigned to expand its use by private individuals. Finally, your proposal is a solution in search of a problem. No problem exists with private sales, and I previously told you why no problem exists, which I don’t need to go into again. Most liberals and gun controllers are big on finding problems that don’t exist and on offering solutions that do not solve the problems they were designed to fix.
Why are you complaining about being insulted. Although you may wish it, you don’t have the right not to be insulted. And what do you expect when you are trying to take away someone’s constitutional rights. While you may not care about the right to be armed others do. How would you react to someone who tried to take away a constitutional right you supported like free speech. If you are going to engage in this debate you are just going to have to deal with the push back. Finally, I am not pigeonholing you. I don’t have to. You’ve done a good job of doing that to yourself. Your liberal leanings and anti-gun agenda are obvious to anyone with a dog in this fight.
Mr. Campbell,
Firstly, do you expect me to believe that characterizing liberal commenters as “pointy headed” types is not a direct insult to their intelligence. But, doesn’t that phrase evoke images of the “cone heads” featured in Saturday Night comedy skits, and thus at least pertains to the idea that liberal commenters are way to intellectual to be considered real?
Secondly, do you really expect me to believe that Charleston Heston’s challenge to gun rights critics, that they would have to take his guns from his “cold dead fingers,” was meant only to (intellectually rally) gun rights supporters? All I can say about that one is that you are obviously wrong–period. Any statement used to rally supporters in a political movement is typically of an emotional nature, whether it comes from liberals, conservatives, Libertarians or Communists, and you know it! Political issues are seldom matter of mathematical precision or intellectual certitude—if they were they would not be issues!
No I don’t have a “right” to not to be insulted, but rude and denigrating responses to any commenters points, are not conducive to a rational and meaningful debate. That also applies to liberals who may criticize opponents as being too stupid to know that 100 round magazines are seldom an equivalent force in regards to what one would typically encounter in a self defense situation. To me and most others people such ammunition capabilities would only be equivalent if their users were in a James Bond movie, or a Liam Neison film. To claims otherwise evokes images of the good guy somersaulting past two or more machine guns which are rapidly firing. And do you really expect me to believe that anywhere near the majority of private home break-ins or assaults by armed antagonists requires having 100 rounds at your quick disposal? You may think those of us who want to improve the system in order to reduce the number of guns and ammunition available to criminals base our opposition solely on emotional appeal, but whenever you encounter opposition to this simple mater of equivalent force, you usually scoff, and claim that critics have never been in a firefight, and that sometimes, those who resist changes made concerning the availability of certain weapons, will resort to insults at the very suggestion that one doesn’t need that kind of quick access to extended firepower, just to defend against a typical burglar? To me dismissing that point, is illogical and would instead be better argued for by citing gun crimes statistics. However, you are right that arguing about that issue would, on this thread, only be a waste of time.
I don’t know if you have read my previous comments to Mr. Vasquez, but in them I express support for your assertion that we need to change the system in ways that do not allow insane or emotionally disturbed individuals who buy guns to escape detection. I made many suggestions of how the system might be changed to allow input from professional counselors which would tip authorities off in advance about the mental state of those who try to buy weapons and how this might be accomplished without truly jeopardizing our rights to personal privacy–in other words, I agree with you about how inadequate the present safeguards in the system are! While the fact is that most mentally ill people do not commit violent crimes, no one can argue against the fact that some mass shooter are completely insane, and should not be able to plan their attacks under the radar of law enforcement. And, in my opinion, no one SHOULD argue that we don’t need to do something about this! And by the way, I have already made mention of Holmes’s case at least two times to illustrate the need to find ways to detect mentally ill people who may be ready to snap!
I said nothing about the work done by the NCIS since I know very little about that organizaton. But the info I included about illegal gun trafficking was taken form law enforcement sites discussing the illegal inflow of arms from all corners of the world, and that includes weapons that flow over the US Mexican border. Although we may need to be more vigilant and effective than we are at stopping that influx, the problem has been addressed for a long time. I can’t remember if it was you or Mr. Vazquez who brought up the issue of preventing illegal arms trafficking, but my response to that question pointed to the fact that it is now, and has been, a grave concern of law enforcement for many years. The problem is not just the flow of illegal weapons from Mexico into the US, but also the flow of weapons from America into Mexico and other areas. In that sense I imagine illegal traffickers are big fans of gun shows held in nearby border areas!
About gun shows, of course paper work may exist at state levels, but this is not really a matter of available documentation from state or federal authorities. Anyone who has ever been paid for doing some work in cash, knows not only the advantage that gives a wage earner in regards to the IRS, but also that without records of personal wages being recorded or shared with the government employers and those making sales, also benefit! You seem to believe that the same kinds of advantages are not applicable with gun shows, but that is doubtful. The reason I know about this is because I know that many times government agents pretending to be private buyers have conducted sting operations at gun shows which almost always include the fact that they were able to purchase weapons in cash and without any pesky paperwork, If one is a straw purchaser of a registered dealer the financial advantage of conducting cash deals with buyers is obvious, and there is no reason to suppose that dealers are not a part of that process. If cash is received, there is no money trail available to interest the IRS, or federal agents!
The idea that 40% of all illegal gun sales are made at gun shows has been refuted by fact checkers long ago, but the fact is that many of these types of sales do take place, even if the numbers are not nearly that high.
About English gun laws, I have also expressed my agreement with you that if the current system in England is grossly deficient when it comes to empowering citizens to defend themselves, (as I have found evidence for online), If what I read is true, I am not in favor of their regualtions.
In America and many countries there are justifiable applications of laws which govern how and when individuals may defend themselves. That’s because even (stand your ground) cases, sometimes include gross negligence on the part of those who claim self-defense. One example is in the fairly recent case where someone at (a drive in restaurant I think) fired several times into a vehicle filled with black teenagers who were playing their music way too loud for his liking? The fact is, that sometimes crazy and aggressive actions are also taken by legal gun owners, as well as criminals who deliberately mean us harm. But our laws concerning self-defense are not nearly as restrictive as they are in the UK, and we often do encounter legitimate cases when the self dense argument is used falsely and without sufficient provocation. Over all though, if the prohibitions I read about are really considered justifiable in the UK, then I am against those prohibitions , and I agree with you.
Getting back to insulting other commenters—I think we have all done this sort of thing, at least on a small scale. Its easy to be passionate about one’s particular position and to feel disgusted when any of our points are not readily understood by another, but in reality, doesn’t that kind of issue go both ways? Doesn’t it affect those who favor no restrictions being place on gun ownership, as well as those who advocate for sensible restrictions? Questioning the meaning of (sensible) is a rational concern, but Personally I have found that many people who answer my posts are easily angered by points of views that differ from their own and they do not hesitate to rapidly become very insulting. I know the reverse situation also exists, and I am not asking for some inequitable sort of moral or legal guarantee not to be insulted. Shit happens!–however whom among us would disagree that when walking through a barnyard, we can usually expect to step in a little cow shit can which is an experience that can destroy any pleasant outlook we may be having about our day? You don’t have to cease insulting me, (although you have done so less than many others commenters) but if you choose to continue insulting me, you will not score any debating points or convince me of the logic behind any of your arguments–and visa versa! So is unloading our frustrations by insulting others, really something that any of us should justifiably try to do?
In regards to the insinuation that those who favor healthcare reforms only do so for some financial reasons, I don’t doubt that this s your belief, but if we are engaged in a discussion about Obamacare, for instance, its not enough for you to simply make that claim, you will be expected to supply evidence in response to contentions made by those whom you are debating. I find that way too often fundamentalist gun rights advocates make blanket statements about one thing or another, yet refuse to supply feasible evidence to support their claims. One example is the fear that the government, (under Obama or another President) wants to confiscate our weapons and make us all obey his or her commands. Yet would any American President be naive enough to expect that the military would unquestioningly follow the arbitrary dictates of a liberal, or a conservative President?—please provide some rational scenarios under which such a massive takeover could actually happen, and then defend your position. Its not enough to merely insist that such a travesty could happen—pigs may someday fly too. So, you should also be prepared to argue logically about the whys and hows concerning the ways this kind of takeover could really happen. If you cannot do so, why should you expect anyone else to believe you?
As far as being pigeonholed, I do not object to civilians possessing weapons for self defense, but I support the right and the need, for government to regulate the sales of certain weapons which are used too often by mass shooters, and which are not necessary to satisfy our everyday needs for self-defense. I have also agreed with your feelings that we need better ways to prevent those who are mentally ill from escaping detection and to benefit from clear red flags about their states of mind, which should be an integral part of background checks! If you want to stereotype anyone, then do so to Mr. Vazquez, who has expressed the belief that personal privacy concerned should never be ignored, and that there is no justifiable reason to tamper with information that might concern a therapist, an MD, or any member of the clergy who feels the need to pass on that vital information. I may be wrong, but at least I made some definite constructive suggestions!
There is no doubt in my mind, that the right to bear arms should be a fundamental right for all those who seek to defend themselves, Its just that I also recognize the role the government may legitimately play in matters which involve public safety and abuses of power. That’s why we have already made it very difficult to acquire machine guns, and that’s also a good reason we should questioning the relative ease with which ordinary citizens can purchase semi-automatic weapons and 100 round magazines.This is a completely valid and pertinent issue. You may think that recognizing limitations on someone’s individuals rights is tantamount to denying that person’s rights, but I say its a completely rational concern. As I said, even the first amendment also comes with certain restrictions and modifications, so nothing in the Constitution is completely immutable and written in stone! As times change, the courts are free to change their interpretations in response it those times. At the time the Constitution was ratified, no one could have conceived of a world in which either machine guns or semi-automatic weapons which could discharge a round every second, would exist. The courts need to define and examine the laws applications through time, and whatever choice one advocates, It is not often unquestionably applicable across the board. You say I have stereotyped myself despite the fact that I agree with several of your opinions—so think again about exactly who is doing the stereotyping.
The recent buzz about the terrorist sleeper cell in San Bernadino, is that their neighbors didn’t want to report their suspicions to authorities because they didn’t want to profile them, so of course the righteous right, has already blamed the shooting on unfair restrictions placed on them, in order to avoid profiling? Did they ever stop and consider that perhaps, (as many of the other neighbors said), that the shooters seemed like a lovely normal couple, so if they were observed doing anything even minimally suspicious, their neighbors might not have wanted to jump to conclusions and bring the law down on their normally well-behaved neighbors. A way to gain some perspective, is by considering how often suspicious neighbors would report minor things said of done by white people in their own buildings or neighborhoods? How often have we heard decent neighbors engaged in a battle of words, or seen a neighbor woman sporting a black eye, but decided to remain quiet for fear that we might be falsely accusing our normally decent neighbors of something that did not really happen the way our imaginations might think? And if a white man had done some suspicious yet minor, in front of us, how motivated would we have been to report our suspicions about him, (or her)?
One reason the President refrains from calling member of ISIS, Islamic terrorists, is because he doesn’t want American citizens of mid-eastern decent, to ALL be associated with radical groups.
An analogy might be, that if we heard a news report during the 60s, in which a reporter informed us that Another innocent black man was flogged and hung until dead, by radical Christians? So, which brand of authentic Christianity would most of us choose as as the Christian organization deemed culpable of this crime, based on viciously murdering those who deny their faith, or punishing those who doubt the superiority of white race and of Christianity?
My guess is that many Christians would have balked at these terms also and tried to point out that there is no legitimate Christian faith that really favors beating and murdering blacks—including the KKK!
So if Obama refers to terrorists simply as, “extremists,” because he wants (just like GW Bush did), to avoid causing a series of hate crimes that could hurt innocent American citizens who also happen to follow the more truly peaceful majority of Muslims who are equally abhorred by the behavior of ISIS.
So lets not think the President is being weak on terrorists or secretly defending radical Jihadists–he is really trying not to stereotype and vilify American citizens of the Muslim faith, because most of them are every bit as patriotic as anyone else!
Most intelligence agencies tell us that ISIS doesn’t really give hoot about religion, and is deliberately playing the role of a brutal form of Islam, in order to further separate social cohesion in the r the civilized world.They could just as easily be calling themselves Methodists or Buddhists, or the one true Christians, if they thought it would help them sew discord and prejudice. Let’s not let them do that! That way, there will be no need to ban or enforce gun legislation based on false stereotypes!
Mr. Johnson.
As I understand it this is a place for folks to express thoughts in their own words not to cut and paste articles taken from favorite websites. If I had wanted to read those articles I’d go to those websites myself, Please go be a troll somewhere else, or put your beliefs in your own words. . .
It amazes me that, on a website like this, you want us to only express thoughts in our own words. I have done plenty of that, but also from time to time, added some links to back them up— because that’s what constitutes a real debate. And believe me I am not a troll! I have been commenting on this website for years, and spent a good deal of the time expressing my own thoughts.
Mr Johnson. I don’t own this website. I am a user like you. You know I am not talking about adding a link in support of something you said. You cut and pasted what appeared to be an entire article you found somewhere and placed it on this website as your own original thought. I call that being a troll. Some other things apply but I’ll leave it at that.
Mr. Campbell,
Your insistence that only licensed gun dealers make sales at gun shows and must document their sales, seems like an easy way to rationalize the idea that, if most guns are sold and bought legally, that means there is no real need improve the way gun shows operate. However, even if only licensed dealers sell weapons at gun shows my obvious criticism would be that, all a licensed dealer needs to do in order to game the system, is to sell weapons for cash without filling any of the necessary paper work before making a sale. As I said, when only cash is exchanged, where can one find the money or paper trail that would link specific dealer to an illegal sale? If weapons are sold in this way, there is nothing to stop a criminal or unscrupulous buyer, from simply filing off the serial number. So because they can sell illegally, without a clear record of a sales, and no way to trace a weapon back to them, then at the very least, lawful gun sellers face extreme temptation to break the rules.
However, I did find (as you stated) that most of the guns sold illegally come from unlicensed dealers who sell them but are not required to fill out the paper work or to record of a sale. The obvious benefits of not being subject to federal income taxes must be tempting to an unlicensed dealer and for a buyer with a criminal background, a record of domestic abuse, or of involuntary commitment to a mental institution. what does a dealer or a purchaser have to loose when selling or purchasing a gun with cash and thus leaving no tell-tale record of a sale? Here is a paste from the Front-line website:
“The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel’s own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that’s where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
And here is a website link from which the following statement comes:
https://everytownresearch.org/reports/business-as-usual/
“Third, our first-of-its-kind analysis of a nationwide online gun marketplace provides evidence that a narrow group of sellers, who should have obtained a license but did not, are offering guns in extremely high volumes. We tested whether unlicensed sellers offering 25 or more guns a year—who play a disproportionate role in the unregulated market—are more likely to meet additional factors for illegally “engaging in the business” without a license. The results showed that they were, and that they differed significantly from low-volume sellers:
/So, It also seems that you are correct that the real gun show loophole has to do with unlicensed dealer who make undocumented sale at them. Part of the the accompanying legal dilemma they present is the definition of what doing “business as an occasional seller” means. It seems that many unlicensed dealers sell quite a large number of guns but still remain within the legal definition of being only“occasional”sellers. Current standards lean towards stipulating a limits of selling no more than 25 weapons in a year, and perhaps of selling only three or four sales to friends or family, from “private collections.” Most of us would probably also consider anyone who makes more than a dozen straw purchases per year and then sells them to people who shouldn’t have them, as being engaged in an illegal business livelihood. We should also consider that making loopholes work, by altering a weapon’s appearance in a cosmetic or minor way, allows it to be sold, as a covert attempt made by those who want to game the system.
Personally I don’t understand why making these kinds of alterations, (which apparently happened with the San Bernadino shooters), cannot be eliminated by deeming any alterations that transform a weapon’s efficiency or power, beyond the capabilities it was originally intended to have, cannot simply be made illegal across the board—or, why simply altering the release mechanism of a high capacity magazine suddenly changes its nature into something that is considered legally acceptable? It may be hard to pin down certain illegal strategies, but I see no reason why our system of gun regulations and prosecutions of offenders cannot become more comprehensive and inclusive? As usual the problem probably lies in politics and in the influence of lobbyists who work for large organizations like the NRA.
To me anyone who sells more than ten weapons a year should NOT represent someone who deals only as an occasional seller, but as usual the Devil is in the details. Its also true that even in States with strict gun laws, potential buyers may simply travel to a nearby state to buy weapons This is what happened in California and what has happened in States like Illinois. This problem also underscores the need for a central data base, and cooperation among the States to codify laws, and make them uniform on a federal level.
You are a very confused and misinformed person.
What’s the point in talking about the temptations faced by federal gun dealers to break the law when we are talking about whether new laws are needed. New laws obviously would not eliminate the temptation you claim exists.
You’re kidding right. You can’t be serious describing the people who sell untraceable smuggled guns to street thugs as Income tax evading unlicensed gun dealers. I guess you also consider street drug dealers as unlicensed pharmacists. You don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Only FFL’s are allowed to sell guns commercially. Those who do so without a federal license are breaking federal law punishable by going to prison. Guns sold in this manner are done by people pretending to be private sellers. This avoids the federal NICS check but all state law paperwork requirements apply. So stop the crap that these sales are “undocumented”. They are all required to be documented in the state where the sale occurred. Federal licenses are extremely hard to get which explains why some people chose to do this.
Placing limits on the number of guns a private individual can sell is not only unfair it most likely violates the constitution. Not that you’d be concerned about that. Gun collectors and sportsmen routinely buy and sell to other gun collectors and sportsmen. There is nothing nefarious about doing that. Number limits would not eliminate the commercial sale of guns without a license since pretenders could still sell up to the limit and when the limit is reached they could look to friends and relatives to help . The cost would be prohibitive. It would require a massive database and an army of bureaucrats. That would cost several tens of billions to set up and many more billions annually to administer and maintain.
I have no idea what cosmetic alterations you referred to or what that has to do with the discussion. I also don’t know what you mean by altering the magazine release mechanism. Semi-automatics are capable of accepting detachable magazines of different sizes, no alteration necessary. Altering fire rate as a practical matter is impossible. If you desire a gun with a certain rate of fire simply by a model designed to fit your specifications. Theoretically any semi auto can be converted to full auto, but to do so is already illegal. If you tried though you would almost certainly wind up with a gun that jammed frequently making it unsuitable for use. It also might blow up in your face. Again you are creating a problem that doesn’t exist because you don’t know what you are talking about.
A federal central database for guns owned by citizens is a blatant violation of the right to privacy. This information could be abused and misused and the temptation to expand it to include even more sensitive information would be far too great for the government to resist. This is yet another example of why this is not about gun control but controlling people.
Mr. Campbell,
Here is what you said a few posts back:
“You’re still not getting it about gun shows and private gun sales. It was obvious that you didn’t know what you were talking about previously, and you still don’t know what you are talking about. I’ll try one more time. The only difference between a private sale and one made through a dealer is that private sales do not require NICS checks. All applicable state laws apply though. Each state has their own unique paperwork requirements, so a record of the transaction exists at the state level. What you said that there is no record of such transactions is simply not true.”
And here is what I said previously that directly relates to that statement:
“However, I did find (as you stated) that most of the guns sold illegally come from unlicensed dealers, who sell them but are not required to fill out the paper work or to record of a sale. The obvious benefits of not being subject to federal income taxes must be tempting to an unlicensed dealer and for a buyer with a criminal background, a record of domestic abuse, or of involuntary commitment to a mental institution. what does a dealer or a purchaser have to loose when selling or purchasing a gun with cash and thus leaving no tell-tale record of a sale?”
I admit I don’t get why you find so hard to believe the proposition that an unlicensed dealer who does not have to fill out paperwork, would obediently comply with paperwork required on a state level? It seems obvious that if one is a private seller, he doesn’t need to identify himself in any capacity as a legal gun dealer. So then, what would compel him to follow state requirements? All he really has to do is show a prospective buyer a gun he wants to sell, ask a certain price, and then be paid that price in cash by the buyer. None of this needs to require paperwork or filing information about the buyer, so neither the federal of state governments would be any the wiser. And for all the seller knows he may have sold a weapon to someone who will then smuggle it into mexico to be used by a drug lords, or to a criminal who will use it to commit a homicide. I also mentioned the obvious advantage of selling anything for cash, in that a private dealer would not have to report the cash he made to the government and therefore will not have to pay income tax on it.
The information about setting some rules on how many weapons a private dealer sells, before he is considered to be making a substantial part of his living from selling guns, and therefore is required to become a licensed gun dealer who must run background checks, ironically makes sense regarding your claim that such dealers must, and do, satisfy state requirements each time they sell a weapon—because that would mean that if they sold say, a legal limit of 25 guns a year, each one of them would have to be sold meeting state requirements, and therefore would provide the State with knowledge of those 25 weapons being sold. However, as I said, you, or anyone else, can walk up to me or someone else, and ask if I want to buy a semi-automatic weapon, name a price, and they receive payment in cash. If you are the seller, you will then have made a tidy profit since comparison shopping against the prices charged by licensed dealerships no longer mean anything. I am being a bit facetious when I refer to “comparison shopping,” but the point is that any private dealer can name their price, and a buyer who perhaps should not own it, has to take it, leave it, or haggle some more. In any case, the seller will not sell it at a loss, and will presumably make a tidy profit that will not have to be revealed to federal or state authorities or the IRS, and will not leave any pesky paper trail of documentation. That’s why to me it makes perfect sense that requiring a limit on private sales before requiring a private dealer to become a licensed dealer, might reduce the number of private sales that are made by people to those with criminal backgrounds, or histories of domestic abuse, or of involuntary commitment to mental institutions. Of course if a private seller doesn’t want the number of sales to be known, he will just not report them by filling out paperwork of forms for the state. But at least, if private sellers are usually as law abiding as you say, then they will reveal those numbers, they will become licensed dealers, and will then comply with the requirement to do background checks. I brought this up because one of the websites I linked, includes the findings of law enforcement, that private dealers may sell hundreds of weapons a year, and so it is absurd for them to claim they are not making a living from dealing, or not selling very many weapons. That is just another scam that can ultimately end up putting weapons in the hands of those who shouldn’t have them! One of the other pastes I included was from the PBS Front-line website which also claims that many licensed, registered, dealers are also making illicit sales—presumably by not requiring the proper paperwork in Lew receiving cash payments—often in very large quantities!
The cosmetic changes I mentioned, involve altering weapons in minor ways that then no longer place them under specific classifications that would (under the law), legally would have prevented them from being sold. Previous gun legislation like that proposed by Senator Feinstein, attempted to prohibit certain kinds of weapons by disqualify those having certain features. However, gun manufacturers got around the law by making minor alterations in design that then removed them from prohibited categories, and as a result Feinstein’s efforts were fruitless.
The thing is, we all know that gun enthusiasts like yourself know much more about the capabilities and physical designs of semi-automatic weapons than Feinstein or people like myself, who are not really interested in owning them. But that knowledge also enables manufacturers to figuratively get away with murder, by simply making minor alterations. I believe the particular alteration of a magazine release mechanism, was included in one of my links, and if you care to you can look there and will probably understand the reference better than I have. However, that’s not the only feature that can be altered to reclassify weapons and keep them legally salable—the practice is a well known strategy used to get around the law.
I am REALLY getting TIRED of being accused of wanting to ban all guns, and of being labeled an extremist because of merely not understanding the 2nd amendment in the way that you do! And there ARE several legally pertinent ways to interpret it! Our courts and justices have a long history of doing just that! So let me explain one more time;
I believe in the first amendment and in the freedom of speech that it guarantees, however, I also accept limits on that amendment as well as on others, i.e. I don’t think that I, or anyone else, has the right to yell FIRE! in a crowded theater. I also believe that if I slander or plagiarize another by publicly accusing them of being or believing in something they really don’t believe—I could be liable to prosecution. By the same token, I cannot claim that I wrote “War and Peace,” or composed the Beatles’s “Let it Be.” These are examples of limits on my free speech. In other words I can’t just says of do anything I please, simply because we all have a First Amendment right to free expression. And that also applies to the 2nd Amendment and many that come after it. None of them are written exclude all changes over time, and one of the purposes of the SCOTUS, is to interpret them and clarify their meaning. ONE MORE TIME—I think certain weapons that are rather easy for the public to obtain, involve issues of public endangerment, and therefore are rightly subject to being regulated by the government—just as automobiles, alcohol, and local building codes are. Sure chewing gum or cooking pork chops doesn’t require the same kinds of regulations, but regulating is a valid function that is rightly undertaken by our government, and its authority has saved many lives by assenting that right!
Actually I don’t care if you want to buy an AR-15 or even an Elephant gun, I just want to make sure that you meet some definite requirements before you do so. Like it or not, if weapons like these fall into the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, they can enable someone to do irreparable and/or fatal harm to others. But merely wanting owners to meet some established requirements before owning dangerous weapons like these, does not threaten away your 2nd amendment rights–it merely ensures that they will be harder to abuse!
I have no favorite websites that I paste from over and over. The two I used, came up after I researched some of your comments, and they only represent small portions of those websites, not “entire websites!” If you don’t believe me, go to those links I provided, and read them for yourself! You will discover that they are only small excerpts from those sites!
As I said, I have enjoyed commenting on this site for years, and most of my comments are derived from my own thoughts. The relatively small remainder, do include links to supporting material because only your thoughts or mine, can’t necessarily prove anything!
Who can win a debate or include a comment with merit, simply by regurgitating his own thoughts? Providing evidence that support one’s ideas is a necessary part of proving any point or in changing anyone’s mind. So quit accusing me of doing things I’m not! Just go to my links and see if my arguments involve my own thoughts or not! Otherwise quit wasting my time!
Mr. Campbell,
Here is a link to some live recordings of private gun sellers doing business on the internet. They were published in Huntington Post in 2011:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/14/illegal-internet-gun-sales_n_1148497.html
Here is a more recent article examining why regulations differing from state to state, are still a perplexing problem for law enforcement officials:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-gun-laws-san-bernardino_56606dd8e4b079b2818d7034
And, here is a link to a Huffington Post article dated October 2015, which explains why private sellers still pose such a problem to law enforcement, and how lax regulations serve to facilitate private sellers who can provide easy purchases for buyers who are not required to take a background check, but can still buy weapons from private sellers who bend the rules:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-j-ognibene/the-nra-comes-out-for-bac_b_8260524.html
I Know you frown on comenters who provide links to specific articles to back up their claims, however, this time I have provided nothing but links. If you go to the trouble to read the articles at them, you will discover some of the things I tried to say in my earlier posts, and which I believe are still problems inherent in private sales of guns. I don’t know if online sales are still such easily exploited platforms which allow buyers who would normally fail background checks to purchase guns. But these kinds of sales have been a persistent problem in the past, and I haven’t yet heard that they no longer exist.
I’m glad you admit that you do not have the right not to be insulted. Now the only thing left is for you to stop whining about it. If you are insulted, simply ignore it. This is not an academic debate, so I am not worried about having debating points deducted
I don’t care what you believe but your assertion that the conservative belief in gun rights is based on emotion is simply not true. Conservatives believe that taking away the constitutional right of all people to bear arms because some people misuse guns is wrong, ineffective and unconstitutional. Your statement that Charlton Heston’s emotional pledge to defend the right to bear arms to the death means that the premise for his belief was also emotional is absurd. That would be like saying Chinese are yellow and bananas are also yellow, therefore bananas are Chinese. I think I’m starting to understand why some people have insulted you. You’ve earned it.
Limiting magazine size and banning particular types of guns is ineffective, and punishes the law abiding. It’s also a very dangerous slippery slope. What starts out as what is described as “common sense gun control” little by little becomes banning firearms entirely, followed by gun confiscation, which is the ultimate goal of the gun control crowd. So whether or not you agree with what they are trying to do does not matter. What matters is that you have chosen their side. That makes you the enemy of law abiding gun rights advocates and is why I think they insult you so much. The only thing standing in their way is the second amendment. Anti-gunners lack the support to amend the constitution so they constantly look for ways around it. The second amendment really pisses them off.
I’m more concerned about the rights of potential future victims of dangerous mentally ill people than I am about their privacy rights. People with certain mental illness should be deemed too dangerous to own guns and that information noted on the NICS database. If privacy is an issue the affected person could simply opt to waive their constitutional right which will be noted on NICS triggering an automatic turn down. Restoring the right to own a gun because the condition was cured would involve adjudication by a court having jurisdiction. Until politicians effectively deal with this more Aurora’s will happen. And of course it will be blamed on the guns not on the government for failing to take action that would have prevented from happening.
NICS stands for National Instant Criminal Background Check System. It’s a database, not an organization. Anyone convicted of a crime is on there. So, you think the problem of gun smuggling is being addressed properly. Really? Illegal gun smuggling has been the biggest source of illegal guns for decades. Not nearly enough is being done to stop it. One of the problems with liberals is you believe the government when they tell you they are doing everything possible to solve a problem when their history of lying, incompetence and corruption should lead you not to believe.
So now you’re an expert on guns smuggled into Mexico? I think not. According to the Mexican government the biggest source of guns found at crime scenes in Mexico are guns of unknown origin. (No import stamp and not manufactured in the US) Only about 10% of all guns seized by Mexican police came from the US. The ones that are smuggled most likely are being bought wholesale from rogue FFL.s, not at open to the public gun shows with wall to wall BATF agents roaming around.
In case you’re not aware the Justice Department (Eric Holder) tried to prove the erroneous belief, one shared by you, that great numbers of guns were being smuggled into Mexico from Border States. He ordered what they called a sting operation code name Fast and Furious. However It was not a sting operation at all. The BATF pressured FFL’s from Border States to sell several thousand guns to known gun smugglers and drug dealers and then sat back and waited for these guns to show up at crime scenes. They recruited the smugglers and drug dealers and even paid for the gun purchases with tax dollars. It blew up in their face big time when a US border guard was murdered by one of the guns smuggled and several BATF whistle blowers (all since fired) came forward. The entire operation was discredited, some people were demoted but none were fired (except the whistle blowers) and nobody was charged criminally. In addition to the Boarder guard scores of Mexicans were murdered as well with guns our government furnished. This was a reckless, stupid and politically motivated misadventure done by people in the government with an anti-gun agenda just like yours.
Glad to hear that you took the time to look into it and now agree with me that there is no right of self-defense in Britain. They started down this road following WW2 with liberals just like you. First guns were made illegal, next self-defense was effectively made illegal, Who knows what’s next. And I’m afraid that the same thing will happen in the US because of people like you.
Self-defense laws vary from state to state. Most states have laws based on the traditional right of self-defense. In 17 states a defender has the duty to retreat before he/she can defend themselves. The only exception is being under immediate threat where no retreat is possible but the burden of proof is on the defender. Conservatives argue for the right to hold your ground while liberals argue against it. Liberals are way behind the curve on this one because the trend is towards stand your ground.
You have suspicion of illegal activity or the lack of required documentation going on at gun shows, but no proof. Citing possible motives is mere speculation, not proof. So either present proof or I’m going to ignore you.
Are you that dense or what. I do not wish to debate healthcare.
WOW! Thanks for the long intellectual and unemotional tirade which was not intended to employ emotional aspects of a debate?
Would you calm down if I told you that I have never given any indication of (ADMITTING THAT I DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE INSULTED)?—there is nothing to admit or deny! I was merely affirming your observation that no commenter has the right to control the ways others comment. AND I HAVE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT! I am not on trial for ADMITTING ANYTHING. If you want to prove otherwise, tell me where I even made the suggestion that you have no RIGHT to insult me. What I was doing was pointing to the fact that insulting one’s opponent, or launching needless insults about their character does not make for a good debate. Here is what I said in a recent comment:
“No I don’t have a “right” to not to be insulted, but rude and denigrating responses to any commenters points, are not conducive to a rational and meaningful debate. That also applies to liberals who may criticize opponents as being too stupid to know that 100 round magazines are seldom an equivalent force in regards to what one would typically encounter in a self defense situation.”
Well I guess that’s what I get for having the integrity to agree with you about the fact that no debater has the right to determine the rules in a debate! And incidentally I have also agreed with you on past issues, such as giving the system better access to information about those having mental illnesses that might make a difference in background checks. I mentioned some of my own ideas, and in your last post you listed some good ones of your own. Yet I have been accused several times, of not using my own thoughts when commenting?
I also agreed with you that, if rights to self-defense are so restrictive, (as it appears some in England are), then they are not fair, and should not be permissible. But please tell my why merely wanting to ensure that less crazy people and criminals get guns, means that all rights to self-defense are in danger of being completely nullified—especially because of what is happening in England—not the USA? I don’t see the correlation? What I asserted is that sometimes those who claim self defense should not be allowed to use weapons in any way they want, all in the name of self defense. There are many cases, like ones that I already have mentioned, in which gun owners have over-reacted in ways that are irresponsible, or which have allowed them to hide behind a cloak of “self-defense,” simply for doing something crazy—like firing into a car full of teenagers whose music was too loud for someone’s liking?—I believe one of the defenses he raised had to do with the claim that some motion made by one of the kids, caused him to fear he was going to be attacked. So, merely expecting Gun owners to adhere to some reasonable guide lines also, has nothing to do with eliminating anyone’s rights to self defense entirely. You don’t have to worry that “people like me,” are going to take us down the path England is on. I have always recognized the right and need for self defense, and I have already told you several times that I agree with you on that issue! I also agree that one should not be restricted from acting in self-defense unless they cannot retreat. This may be logical if someone insults another person in a bar, and is then gunned down by that person who claims self defense, because of an insult that he could have easily walked away from, but not so much if one is running away from an assailant who is shooting at that person’s back. But please don’t accuse me of “admitting” this–I have always had objections to those kind of unfair and limiting stipulations.
I can also tell you that since Watergate during Nixon’s presidency, I have always had doubts about whether our government always tells the truth, (or even tells it most of the time). Politicians from both sides of the aisle, are fond of making standard responses to questions from voters and for using platitudes and cliches to mislead the public–both conservatives and Democrats! The current government may not be doing all it can against gun traffickers, but, the idea that it deliberately ignores the issue entirely, or does very little about it deliberately, makes no sense to me? That would mean the government is interested in preventing gun deaths but is deliberately ignoring a big way in which gun deaths occur?
I also never claimed I was an “expert on guns smuggled into Mexico.” I merely pointed out that the easy prospect of obtaining guns from relatively nearby gun shows would certainly appeal to criminal elements in Mexico, as in fact, IT DOES! And there is growing evidence that even licensed American gun dealers are taking part in gun trafficking. Who do you think is in charge of initiating background checks, or seeing that the proper paperwork is done? Unless all licensed gun dealers are pure as he falling snow, they face obvious temptations to deal in large number of weapons, for large amounts in cash—one of my links to a PBS site discusses this problem—sorry for disobeying with your wishes by providing a corroborating link to that site.
As far as “Fast and Furious” goes, I have never tried to defend that fiasco either. But I think it was an honest attempt to gain information about drug lords. If one of the guns involved was used to kill a border agent, than that is wrong and tragic–just like laws that allow many mass shooters to obtain rapid firing semi-automatic weapons without sufficient safeguards, are wrong and tragic! I could also mention that all administrations have been incompetent in ways that lead to ending the lives of innocent people and bystanders. Why don’t you try looking up info about the Iran–Contra scandal, or the intelligence failures surrounding 911. Then, I hope you will also look up information about the 13 US embassies that were attacked during George W. Bush’s administration, and which resulted in large losses of human life–strange how the so called, ‘liberal media,” reported next to nothing about any if them? And no, I’m not changing the subject to embassy attacks now, I am only mentioning them as other examples of gross ineptitude done potentially on the parts of any and all administrations, and as a example that liberals are not favored unfairly on every political issue form soup to nuts!
About proof that guns are sold illegally at gun shows—there is plenty of proof–like those in the links I so arrogantly thought might be used to back up my claims, and which you objected so loudly to, for even being mentioned!
About the supposed righteous political statement from Charleston Heston about prying his gun from his cold dead hands—he is not the only one who is apparently so calm and collected, as to eschew emotions in order to gain support for those who demand almost no gun regulations at all? You can also hear the words of Wayne La Pierre in a PBS video documentary about the politics behind American gun issues, which includes his characterization of gun regulation supporters as Jack-booted thugs who want to break down our doors and destroy our freedoms, (not a direct quote) and not likely an intellectually dispassionate comment about those who differ with him La Pierre no doubt?
And by the way, I brought up Heston’s statement not as proof that his (premise) for opposing gun regulations was emotional—I pointed out that the emotional appeal in that statement is something all political leaders make common use of, and about which he represents no exception. My argument has been to assert that emotional displays are parts of everyone’s arguments, political or not, and should not automatically to be seen as signs or weakness or grievous logical errors. A more accurate summary of my deductive reasoning would be—“Conservatives criticize those who make emotional comments—therefore it is illogical of them to criticize others for also making emotional comments!”
So far in your last post, you have admonished me for whining about an issue I readily agree with you on. And since I have never even debated recent self-defense restrictions in England, how can I admit to taking any stand on an issue I have never even argued about on this forum, or any other?
I suppose you have always displayed even tempered responses to things I have said which are in agreement with what some liberals believe, by referring to me as “liberals like you, ” choosing “THEIR” side, and while labeling me as an “anti-gunner” who opposes the 2nd Amendment—as well as an enemy of law-abiding gun rights advocates, and as someone who “deserves” to be insulted—apparently for not accepting all of your personal beliefs? You have also accused me of making statements which I provide no proof for, even when I try to provide links to relevant websites in order to back up my arguments! So, please look up the words, “illogical,” and, “contradictory,” because apparently you think they never apply to descriptions of your own reasoning! Furthermore, although I have said hardly a word about health insurance and/or the ACA for many days now, and didn’t even originally bring up the topic in the first place, somehow you managed to end your last comment by accusing me of being “dense,” and implying that I want to debate healthcare? You are a very confused and misinformed person!
You are a very frustrating person. One more time. I did not criticize you for posting links to support your own opinions. I objected to you cutting and pasting what appeared to be an entire article written by someone else and holding it out as your own.
Your first website is an article from the Huffington Post dated 12/4/11. It highlights a report of a nationwide investigation into illegal gun sales done by the city of New York for the mayor at the time Michael Bloomberg called Point Click and Fire. The report concludes that 62% of all private seller gun sales are illegal and that that illegal gun sales account for 40% of total guns sold annually. It recommends that private sales be made subject to NICS checks. The report was sent unsolicited to various federal agencies demanding that they implement the recommendations. The so called investigation took place over a period of 18 days. A team of 15 NYPD investigators examined 125 private sellers from 14 states who advertised guns for sale on 10 different websites who expressed a willingness to sell to a buyer who said they could not pass a background check. Only 5 private sellers were actually caught by investigators selling guns illegally. The scope of the investigation was extremely limited. There are other problem with the way the sampling was chosen but I need not go into them .I will stop by saying no conclusion could be reached from such a small sampling used for the investigation. Another way of putting it is the report is a scam. It was politically motivated to advance the agenda of an activist politician. None of the federal agencies the report was sent to took it seriously. This is irresponsible journalism by the Huffington Post. The way it’s written leads the reader to believe that this was a credible report when it doesn’t even pass the smell test. Only people like you believe garbage like this. None of the available information out there supports what you claim about illegal gun sales. Your insistence that it does and therefore warrants taking away the right to sell private property is why people consider you among other things a radical kook. Unless you have something intelligent to offer I am not going to respond on the subjects of gun shows, the internet and background checks.
The second link, also a news story from the Huffington post, reports that the San Bernadine shooters bought the guns they used in California but they made certain modifications to them that made the guns illegal to possess in California. What am I missing? What does this have to do with anything?
The third link is a blog from the Huffington post talking about the NRA. The blogger, and I guess you because you sent the link, thinks the NRA is hypocritical for checking employment and financial history of potential new hires while it advocates making it as easy possible for all others to buy a gun. That is absurd. One has nothing to do with the other. Almost every employer checks previous employment and financial status prior to hiring.
You either did not pay enough attention to Fast and Furious or drank too much government kool aid to think it was an honest attempt to gain information about drug dealers. Its stated purpose was to track the guns to dealers in Mexico, but the facts tell a different story. The BATF did not even tell the Mexican government about sending the guns there to begin with. So there was no way to track these guns let alone gain any information about drug dealers. This was a scheme by the DOJ to inflate the number of guns found at crime scenes in Mexico to support their phony claim that the illegal sales of guns by FFL’s being smuggled into Mexico was rampant. Which by the way is something you also claim is true without evidence to prove it. The scheme was going according to plan with hundreds of guns showing up at Mexican crime scenes until the US border agent was murdered with one of the guns and the BATF whistle blowers stepped forward. No criminal charges were filed because all the players except for the 2 whistle blowers who go fired circled the wagons and covered it up.Your government proudly at work,
Mr. Campbell,
Even if you discredit the studies or research done by liberals or Democrats, (usually according to partisan loyalties), and seem to think it means so much to all liberals to lie, cheat, steal, or to deny guns completely, I am actually happy that you chose to respond to some of the comments I made, and to visit some of the websites I provided links for. This is not something you typically do. And In your most recent comments, you have focused on using straw man arguments like self defense laws in England, or else showering me with ad hominen attacks on my character or my writing styles. But I am getting tired of constantly being lied about. I have brought to your attention several times, that I sometimes paste relevant comments from links which provide corroborating evidence. These pastes are seldom more than one or two paragraphs, unless what they involve are larger amounts of information that are pertinent to the discussion, i.e. Say you wanted to discuss all of the major league football teams in America and started by listing each team, their quarterbacks, and star players etc. So as to make a comprehensive comment about the entire sport, and all of its players?—that is the only way I would also include any long lists in my posts, and I have always included many of my personal thoughts about these facts and bits information,whenever commenting on ANY forum. If I choose to paste portions of some articles, that is obviously to provide you or someone else with an opportunity to know some of the content in an articles I am citing, and thus motivate you to read them for yourself. Almost all the pastes I use are brief. But what does that have to do with the actual information in them, and their relevance to the topic we are discussing? All you keep doing is using one straw man argument after another to discredit statements of mine that are relevant to the discussion—who cares how I write, or how I include information in my posts, as long as I am reproducing it accurately? And, although you have every opportunity to dispute the proofs I glean from that information, you seem to think that my using them as sources or proofs for arguments, somehow indicates they are either, not my honestly held beliefs, or that they are not valid because they include information from sources that you contest.
I have tried to explain all of this previously, and if you look back at your own posts, you will see that even when I occasionally agree with you on a particular point, your response has often been to speak critically about me for, “admitting,” something?—and as I have said there is nothing to admit or deny—only whether I agree or disagree with one of your points. What do you want me to say instead?
Its true that many studies of how illegal gun are obtained have questionable methodology and may be supported for political purposes. But the article about Mayor Bloomberg’s gun study, was to me merely an example that sometimes private sellers do sell guns to people who they know shouldn’t have them, and that there is a sort of cavalier, who cares attitude, shared by many private sellers. I might also note that studies of gun violence and gun regulations by conservative are also quite questionable as to their representing a valid non-partisan viewpoint. Bloomberg’s survey may have been done without the proper methodology but, so have many studies done by those promoting conservative interests. The POP’s article, “Make My day! Talk about DGU’s,” mentions the many flaws in studies about defensive gun uses, and some of the methodological absurdities behind their so called results. And in general many experts in gun crimes and illegal sale of guns say that, definitive results are dubious on either side, since no two cross sample of representative groups in differing areas, are completely the same, so conclusive data derived from them, is prone to flaws. If you check out this observation by examining fact checking websites, you can see that this professional opinion is expressed frequently among most researchers.
As far as the first gun study I mentioned from the Huffington Post, some of your claims of research bias, I am already aware of. I did know that the evidence claiming 40% of all illegal gun sales take place at gun shows, was contested in the Bloomberg article itself, which actually points out that some estimates are “less”. However, I doubt that either end of he political spectrum has been infallible.
MY link to an article about the San Bernadino shootings, mentioned that minor changes can sometimes be made which then allow certain kinds of illegal guns to be used—despite the fact that they were originally restricted in California? Worse, these changes are much too easily made.The technical modifications that can be preformed on certain weapons is controversial, but the intention of this article was primarily to focus on how merely traveling to different states where desired weapons can be sold, confounds the laws in California and allows easy access to illegal weapons. Buyers may only have to drive a few hundred miles in order to purchase weapons that, if desired, can then be covertly used in their states of residence. Changing minor features that may allow larger magazines to be used, or transforming semi-automatics into weapons capable of automatic fire, (no matter how unsafe), merely point out how easy making those changes can be, and can circumvent state laws prohibiting them. I am amazed you didn’t get that! The article also mentions that their .233—caliber rifles had the power to penetrate ballistic vests and walls—but I guess to you that’s the kind of firepower no home owner can possibly go without?
As far as Fast and Furious, this was a scandal fraught with partisan interests and back and forth assertions and denials. I am going to refuse to follow your commenting preferences by actually providing this paste in an article about the scandal in Wikipedia:
During the June 12, 2012, Senate hearing, Eric Holder stated, “If you want to talk about Fast and Furious, I’m the Attorney General that put an end to the misguided tactics that were used in Fast and Furious. An Attorney General who I suppose you would hold in higher regard was briefed on these kinds of tactics in an operation called Wide Receiver and did nothing to stop them—nothing. Three hundred guns, at least, walked in that instance.” Holder cited a briefing paper on “Wide Receiver”; the DOJ Office of Legislative Affairs later clarified that the briefing paper was about the Fidel Hernandez case, prepared for Holder’s predecessor, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey before his meeting with Mexican Attorney General Mora on November 16, 2007.[35]The Hernandez Case had ended October 6, 2007,[103] before Mukasey entered office November 9, 2007.[104] The office further explained, “As Attorney General Holder also noted in his testimony, and as we have set forth in prior correspondence and testimony, he took measures and instituted a series of important reforms designed to ensure that the inappropriate tactics used in Fast and Furious, Wide Receiver, Hernandez, and other matters about which the Department has informed Congress are not repeated.”[35]The later DOJ OIG investigation concluded “Attorney General Mukasey was not briefed about Operation Wide Receiver or gun “walking,” but on a different and traditional law enforcement tactic that was employed in a different case.”[1]
Pardon me for pasting this interesting paragraph which asserts that Holder’s efforts to reform the tactics used in Fast and Furious and the DOJ Office of Legislative Affairs confirmed that a briefing paper about the Fidel Hernandez case, was prepared for Holder’s predecessor, US. Attorney General, Michael Mukasey before meeting with Mexican Attorney General Mora—on Nov. 16th 2007!
Pardon me for having an opinion, but the practice of “gun walking,” began with the Bush administration, and was not invented by Democrats, who frequently denounced it. This is all a political stew-pot boiling under the power of politically motivated interests. Senators on the investigative committee, who skewered Obama’s people were typically Republicans. So how can you be so sure that this was all some stupid violation of law merely to give the “impression” that many guns are actually trafficked from America to Mexico—that sounds exactly like the crap Rush Limbaugh spews regularly—and with endless repetition, gets people to believe in it too! Some ideologues like him, actually accused Obama of using the grief of Newton parents to further his own political agenda, and then had the gall to suggest that their objections were not a truly politically motivated ploy? All of these sorts of things are possible, yet remain remarkably unproven, even after the many grandstanding Congressional hearings designed to implicate Obama for anything—anything at all!
I have heard excuses from both sides of the aisle about Politicians who want to defend themselves, and I have heard many nasty, but unproven insinuation also. But the fact that politics depends partly on deceptions—circulated by either party—is unfortunately common knowledge. The idea that our government deliberately endangers lives by allowing weapons to be steered across the border merely to support a political talking point, is doubtful. But if I took this, and the many other political scandals I have heard about, with a grain of Sand, I might now own all the beach property on the entire pacific coast!
Before you start diverting the issue by accusing me of actually using a paste from Wikipedia, let me first ask you how much of this letter is comes from that one paste?
About gun dealers being required to give perspective employees strict background checks, and not so much for those who buy guns, does sound like one of those all too common political barbs. It makes sense that gun dealerships would want to examine the backgrounds of those they hire, just as many employer do in a variety of jobs. But I suppose the article is intended to complain about the lack of regulations required of private dealers, who can forgo background checks, and somtimes a lot of consequentially vital information that could have made a real difference. If guns are sold for cash in private, the benefit for both parties to avoid recording pesky information is obviously tempting. However, I agree with most of the websites I have visited, that the large majority of licenced dealers and private dealers are likely to obey the law. But only one case of ignoring legal protocols, has the potential to ultimately kill hundreds of people. So what is so wrong with wanting universal background checks?
Let me leave you with a link to a video in which Wayne La Pierre speaks with great wisdom about gun control. He should be credited with the invention of flip-flopping and waffling!:
Your reason for supporting taking away constitutional private property rights (requiring private gun sales to pay FFL brokers) is based on a seriously flawed report. I don’t need to go any further to prove that your argument for this is as broken as the Bloomberg report is phony.
The Bloomberg report does not conclude that 40% of total guns in America are sold at gun shows. The report deals with internet sales, not gun shows. It concludes that 40% of guns sold in the US are private gun sales deemed to be illegal because they were done by unlicensed commercial sellers pretending to be private sellers).
You are being intellectually dishonest to say the least. There is no comparison to be made between Bush’s operation Gun Walker and Obama’s Fast and Furious, and you know it. Gun Walker was an honest attempt to track guns sent to Mexico. It was a joint operation with the federal Mexican police, so there was a tracking mechanism in place. It was terminated when the BATF discovered the Mexican police were working with the drug dealers. In Fast and Furious there was no such tracking mechanism, the Mexican government wasn’t even told about it. The sole purpose of the operation was to inflate the numbers of US guns found at Mexican crime scenes. If Eric Holder was against sending guns to Mexico as you say why did he order doing it? It was done to support his bogus claim that gun smuggling from US Border States into Mexico was rampant. The left attempted to equate the two operations in order to minimize their culpability for the scores of deaths F&F caused and to cover up the extent of the deceit and deception they are willing to go to advance their anti-second amendment agenda,
This was solely an Obama/Holder operation and had nothing to do with the advance their anti- second amendment agenda. That you support this obvious lie speaks volumes about you.
Oh, so the link on the NRA requiring strict employee background checks while defending constitutional rights is a political barb. Sorry I missed that. But why are you posting political barbs to an intellectual debate forum? By the way the NRA is not a gun dealer. They are an advocacy group for constitutional rights.
You have not included any cut and pastes. All the incoherent rambling in your last post appear to be your own. Incidentally stating my opinion about you and your motives is not an ad hominem attack on your character. When I say people like you I mean liberals who are out to take away the constitutional rights of others and are willing to do and say anything to achieve their ends. That is my opinion of you and I am entitled to it. So stop whining and stop playing victim.
Mr. Campbell,
You and I are having some serious failures to communicate. I am aware that the study mentioned in the Huffington post concerned private seller on the internet who apparently had no objections to selling guns illegally to customers that they knew should not have them. But I was under the impression that they too are classified as (private) sellers. If I am mistaken about your inclusion of gun show sales as venues where sellers who make illegal sales are primarily private sellers, as you have often said, then could you please tell me why you never seem to think that, private sellers cannot be guilty of fraud .
About the 40% of all illegal sales being sold at gun shows–that actually is a statistic, that has since been debated and largely discredited!. As the article itself admits—when asserting that some people consider this number to be less—haven’t you also said that only licenced firearms dealers need to comply with preforming background checks before sales, can’t that merely be another attempt to permit massive numbers of private sellers to sell weapons? And as such, couldn’t that also be considered just another form of fraudulent activity?
My criticisms of private unlicensed sellers needing to provide documentation of all sales, is based on the knowledge that the law currently does not place limits on those kinds of sales–thus private dealers may sell 100 or more weapons per year without even having to report incomes from those sales, when based on the false claim that such sales do not make up a significant part of their incomes, and therefore have nothing to do with running a business.
The price tags I have seen on ads featuring semi-automatic weapons frequently price them at $700 or more, therefore a private seller may receive large amounts of income from those sales without having to file background checks. If anything, objecting to such a tax dodge is unpatriotic since it has to do with shirking the responsibility of income earners to pay portions of their income to the IRS. Some people who study this kind of legal scam advocates setting limits each years i.e. if—only 25 guns are sold by them per year—and, oh! What you consider as fundamental part of free expression which is really not much more than a tax avoidance scam—How many people have more than 100 guns which are available to be sold in private parties each year, and yet, can’t afford reporting those sales as part of their earned income?
when I referred to criticisms about requiring strict background checks for those employed at gun selling venues, I called it a political barb merely to indicate my feelings that this type of issue is just one more form of common, politically motivated attacks, on the integrity of those whose opinions align with with NRA’s. And you would have KNOWN this if you had even bothered to read my full comment about requiring strict background checks for those employed in the gun industry—I SAID IT MAKES SENSE, AND IS IN FACT, SOMETHING ALSO REQUIRED BY MANY OTHER EMPLOYER, LOOKING TO HIRE EMPLOYEES IN OTHER KINDS OF JOBS!—I was agreeing with you dummy!
About Fast and furious, I didn’t follow that story at the time, but after reading about all the conflicting claims about it in Wikipedia, I think it clearly was a quagmire of competing partisan interests. The article did not mention that differing definitions of gun walking technically apply to different forms of this covert isue. It claimed that the practice began with the Bush administration, and was fundamentally cut from the same political cloth.
The point I tried to make is that a great variety of politically motivated scandals are perpetrated as parts of biased partisan scandals, and that I am not willing to just swallow your version of what happened without examining it also. I also mentioned the Iran-Contra scandal under Reagan’s watch as another similarly clandestine government operation.
I am just saying that there are a great number of conflicting forms of evidence which have been advanced by Republicans who are extremely eager to create political damage in order to discredit Democrats! So your condemnation of current Democrats who supposedly want to deny YOUR guns, based on the results of some common politically motivated scandal, is far from conclusive—one way or the other!
Amazingly even though I agreed with some of your points, you ended your latest comment by claiming, “you have not included any cuts and pastes,” even though anyone reading this forum has clearly seen me do so, and also have heard you make such false claims.(to discredit me) many times before!
If you weren’t so eager to pull the trigger and ask question later, you would be aware of the many false statements you have made about me. And you have openly distorted claims which you think I made in various comments. If you were simply willing to actually read all the things I say, and objectively evaluate my comments, you would see how very off base your rebuttals are!
I am beginning to think that you really don’t care about anything I say, and are instead obsessed with discrediting my comments for your own personal enjoyment. If that’s the case, I am no longer playing!
I never said that private gun sellers are incapable of doing something illegal. There are obviously people pretending to be private sellers who are actually selling guns commercially without a license. There is no way of knowing how many though. I am not going to repeat this again. Your assertion that illegal gun sales are rampant among people claiming to be private sellers is based on phony reports.
You are still missing the point about Fast and Furious. It demonstrates how low anti-second amendment people like you will to go to promote your agenda. It was dishonest and reckless. The planners knew or should have known that scores of people would die, but that did not matter as long as it helped prove their blatant lies about the number if smuggled guns into Mexico.
Listen to these recording of shots fired, that is in the begging of this Front-line video. These guns seem to fire way more than one round per second. So why are they not considered to be fast and
efficient killing machines that, without doubt, should be kept out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them–by improving the gun laws?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/gunned-down/
I see no need for any new gun laws beyond keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. If you want to reduce gun violence start with doing something about the mentally ill then move on to the criminal justice system.. Put violent career criminals behind bars.for life including gun smugglers. Criminals ignore restrictions so passing new ones is ineffective, They will only be obeyed by the law abiding. Very few gun crimes are committed by the law abiding, Taking away a constitutional right from everyone because some will misuse guns is illogical, ineffective and unconstitutional. In a free society the ends do not justify the means. . .
Actually most mentally ill people are not violent, so the debate shouldn’t focus only on them.
And yes, why even make murder against law–people will just keep murdering anyway? You’ll just create a situation where law abiding citizens are potentially suspected of murder—-AND?
I previously said that those with certain mental illnesses not all mental illnesses should be barred from owning guns. Mental health professionals would identify those illnesses that would disqualify someone from owning a gun.
And I only pointed out that mental illness is but one source which contributes to gun crimes. So we would be mistaken to focus only on it, and ignore all other aspects of the problem.
In my most recent reply to Mr. Campbell, I mistakenly referred to the “chicken” guarding the hen house instead of the fox guarding the hen house. But since the NRA dares not make one reasonable compromise that might include concessions about how we might actually improve background checks, perhaps the word “chicken,” is not so inappropriate after all!
Some special points of interest in the aforementioned Front-line video are the accounts of the shootings at Columbine, at about 7 minutes into the film, and the accounts of the Sandy Hook shootings at about 30 minutes in the film. All accounts of mass shootings are covered alongside actual sound recordings of the shots being fired by respective mass shooters. The pop, pop, pop, at some points sounds so rapid, as to hardly reveal a discernible interval between them. It seems to me that the shootings at Sandy Hook especially, were discharged very fast!
You can also view and hear the (non-emotional, intellectual, and supremely rational quote?), used as a rallying cry by Wayne La Pierre at about 22 minutes into the film.
Strangely, my mention of some misspelled words in one of Mr. Campbell’s recent comments, did involve misspellings of the kinds I described, but somehow these misspellings only appeared in the print I made from the POP’s email notification—these misspellings somehow are not in his aforementioned post as it appears on this thread?
I Don’t know what happened, but I value fairness and accuracy, so I thought I should mention this apparent mistake.
I have been following the exchange between Peter and Mr. Campbell and have been amazed at Peter’s restraint. Mr Campbell obviously has no interest in debating the issue – he only seems focused on challenging EVERYTHING said by Mr. Johnson. I have greatly appreciated the Propaganda Professor’s calm and effective arguments for his viewpoints and am not sure I would have refrained from pointing out the repetitive challenges made by Campbell as total BS. Peter, keep up the good work. There are not enough intelligent people discussing this issue and we all need to hear your thoughtful contributions.
Mr. Gill,
Thanks for the encouraging remarks. We all get angry when unable to get through to another, or when that other doesn’t even give a damn about insulting someone else. But the fact is we all should respect other debaters if we want to understand their honest opinions. That isn’t going to happen with Mr. Campbell, so I am afraid I will just have to quit engaging him.
Mr. Gill
I challenged a lot of what Mr. Johnson says because I disagree. That’s the nature of debate. I found it necessary to repeat challenges because previous challenges went completely or partially unanswered.
If there is anything I have said that you disagree with feel free post it and I will respond accordingly. But please be specific on what you disagree with
Mr. Campbell,
you repeatedly insisted that I want to see all guns eliminated, that I considered people like you to be evil, or the devil etc. You repeatedly criticized me for providing no facts, and then after I back up my opinions with relevant websites, you criticize me for not speaking my own mind?
Although I told you many times that I approve of guns when used by citizens for self defense, you have kept on insisting that I want to defy your constitutional rights, and threaten your freedom, by refusing to let you own any guns you want. Then, when I have repeatedly explained why I accept the need to let the courts interpret the intentions of our founders, you have repeatedly ignored my responses, and refused to even discuss what I said.
Part of my first amendment rights, include the freedom to disagree with the way the courts rule. Yet, after repeated attempts to explain my views, you have continually responded with arrogance and by denigrated my character—while dictating the ways this debate should be run. You even find it necessary to criticize my writing style–even though such ad hominem attacks have nothing to do with the topic at hand?
What’s obvious to me, is that you’re the one who keeps whining incessantly like a skipping record—about how I am not expressing myself correctly. But all the while its really you, who have been relying too heavily of conjecture, speculation, and websites which spoon feed you what you want to hear—But how do you think anyone really knows about the ways a DGU cases go down?—obviously by reading about them in newspapers and consulting the records of law enforcement agencies—just as many who claim they have been made aware of these DGUs also do!
Because you continually berate, repeat falsehoods, and denigrate others, you have never shown a decent level of respect for dissenters—just an aptitude for dissing their comments. And I am sure as Hell, not going to keep this circus act of yours going indefinitely—while “discussing” your beliefs on an “individual basis!”
When any of us on this forum responds to the comments of another by directing own ideas for consideration by that person, that person is are already discussing every conceivable issue on an individual basis!. If you are afraid of leaving a public record of your rude and arrogant responses, then that’s up to you! I haven’t said anything here, (on this thread), that I would express, or responded to differently, while exchanging private comments or emails with you–and I am not masochistic enough to think that I can—period!
Mr. Campbell’s remarks illustrate one of the problems of having an open forum: there are always individuals who exploit the opportunity to draw attention to themselves by spewing out patent silliness or worse. Expect these comments to be more filtered in the future.
POP,
MR. Campbell seemed only interested in how much he could frustrate and upset me, even though his words were devised to create the illusion of arguing persuasively against ANY new gun regulations.
I am most happy about posting the short video of Wayne La Pierre which reveals his supposed dedication for establishing reforms that would require that EVERY person buying guns, to pass universal background checks? People like him routinely put their feet in their own mouths and then devise clever spins to explain themselves later. As such, La Pierre has proved that he is a typical politician—more interested in securing the gun industry’s power and influence, and in guaranteeing its continuing profits, than truly committing to find ways that might prevent or reduce mass shootings.
With Mr. Campbell, I could have easily accepted his right to express his beliefs, and then engage in efforts to debunk those of others–I just could no longer endure having everything I said being contradicted with illogical, concocted arguments, and consistently being accused of believing in things that actually produce unnecessary discord—over and over again? It seems today, as one of your previous posts pointed out, that we are more interested in expressing hostile attitudes and insisting that we are right, rather than actually listening to the views of others.
POP
I have argued persuasively against the gun regulations presented here. But neither you nor anyone else has rebutted any of my arguments.
You obviously have a thing with Wayne La Pierre. Instead of trying to besmirch him here why don’t you engage him directly so that he can respond to your accusations? You can post the result here on your forum. I’m sure your admirers would relish seeing you in action giving him hell.
The invitation is still open to debate any proposed new regulation. You seem to be big on Mother Jones, which, you said like your forum, also debunks “gun myths”. I disagree. I will also debate any myth they claim to have debunked. Simply provide a copy and the reasons why you agree.
Also if you wish to exclude my comments, just give the word and I will go away. I’m sure it would not be the first time you kicked out someone with a dissenting opinion, nor will it be the last time. How’s the saying go: free speech for me but not for thee.
Either you haven’t bothered reading any of the many things I’ve written about gun myths or you’re playing games or you’re just plain stupid.
Mr. Johnson
By chipping away at it a little at a time the ultimate goal of gun control is to make guns illegal. So pardon me if I don’t believe you when you say that’s not your intention. I have never said nor have I implied that you think of me as evil or the devil. You have sent me websites to support your position, which I have explained are seriously flawed. I note that the MJ article does not support any gun control measure you’ve supported here… yet you sent it to me. I find it offensive because it’s a hit piece. Among other things it paints gun owners as paranoid idiots for believing in “myths”. Going number by number in the article If there is anything that you specifically agree with please post the reasons you agree and I will respond accordingly. Once again, I criticized you for plagiarizing an article without even acknowledging that it was written by someone else. I did not criticize you for citing websites.
Accusing me of being rude and disrespectful is not going to win the debate. If you no longer wish to debate just let me know and we are done here.
I already did notify you! Imploring me not to be rude and disrespectful has got to be an entire new level of absurdity in the world of antagonistic Irony–get lost!
I would add to you, Mr. Campbell that, contrary to what you suggested in another comment that did not meet standards for posting, I couldn’t care less whether you “agree” with the facts I present here. I just don’t want you to continue trying to goad other people into chasing their rhetorical tails the way you do.
POP,
After scrolling up and down all over this thread, I can’t find a post I made about the Fast and Furious scandal—which famously plagued the Obama administration. In Obama’s defense I wrote a comment which referred to an article in FORTUNE, and which brought to light many issues that were not reported in the news at that time. I also included a few pastes from actual intelligence agencies and agents, which were presented as direct quotes in the article itself, and, and which also disputed the media coverage of the scandal at that time.
Is there some reason you didn’t print it? Was there some flaw in the way I wrote it? I did a great deal of research before submitting that comment, yet cannot see it anywhere in the original forum–the one featuring responses to your original Myths about Hitler and Gun Control. article. If I am wrong about it not being posted anywhere, can you please tell me where I failed to look? You need not include this comment on this forum.
thanks Peter W. Johnson
It doesn’t ring a bell, and it doesn’t sound like something that would have been filtered out. Don’t know what happened — I’ll see if I can find it.
Thanks POP,
I’m pretty sure I saw it posted a few days ago, but now it isn’t there. If you can’t find it, or it somehow got deleted, I have another copy I can post. I do think that it wasn’t offensive in any way, So it shouldn’t have been discarded. However, this thread contains almost a thousand posts–many of them long winded like mine, so perhaps I just couldn’t find what amounts to a needle in a haystack.
Once again you are not required to post this comment. Thanks.
POP,
Here is a link to a web article I recently included in a response to Mr. Campbell which debunks the idea that armed civilians frequently stop mass shootings or shootings in general:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings
I also did some investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Fast and Furious scandal which uncovered misinformed federal prosecutors, ATF officials who could not arrest private dealers due to Arizona laws that tied their hands behind them, petty infighting among members of the Fast and Furious task force, primarily used to exact revenge against Supervisor Voth by agent Dodson, who Voth chastised for failure to follow established procedures, and sensationalized but misleading coverage of the scandal by CBS.
Attacks made against Voth did not include his own statements, (except for several that were taken out of context), and a consequential politically motivated witch hunt intended to scandalize the Obama Administration and to discredit the efforts to improve gun regulations, ensued. The scandal was aided by gun rights advocates whose goal was to disable ATF. These included former militia member Mike Vanderboegh who has advocated an insurrection against the US government. Here is a link to a 12 page article in Fortune which details this and many other interesting yet widely unknown facts:
http://fortune.com/2012/06/27/the-truth-about-the-fast-and-furious-scandal/
Although I know Mr. Campbell disdains the inclusion of pastes from various websites, I am providing two pastes each only one paragraph, from the Fortune article—first:
“On June 1, Dodson used $2,500 in ATF funds to purchase six AK Draco pistols from local gun dealers, and gave these to Fernandez, who reimbursed him and gave him $700 for his efforts. Two days later, according to case records, Dodson—who would later testify that in his previous experience, “if even one [gun] got away from us, nobody went home until we found it”—left on a scheduled vacation without interdicting the guns. That day, Voth wrote to remind him that money collected as evidence needed to be vouchered within five days. Dodson e-mailed back, his sarcasm fully restored: “Do the orders define a ‘day’? Is it; a calendar day? A business day or work day….? An Earth day (because a day on Venus takes 243 Earth days which would mean that I have plenty of time)?”
And the last paragraph in the Fortune article:
“Issa’s claim that the ATF is using the Fast and Furious scandal to limit gun rights seems, to put it charitably, far-fetched. Meanwhile, Issa and other lawmakers say they want ATF to stanch the deadly tide of guns, widely implicated in the killing of 47,000 Mexicans in the drug-war violence of the past five years. But the public bludgeoning of the ATF has had the opposite effect. From 2010, when Congress began investigating, to 2011, gun seizures by Group VII and the ATF’s three other groups in Phoenix dropped by more than 90%.”
The Fortune article is full of details about the case plus specifically quoted statements from the parties involved. Of course I can’t paste it all here, but I have given you a link to it. And if anyone is interested in viewing this case beyond the politically partisan version that the public has been spoon fed, you might want to read it.
POP,
Actually I did find that prior post–written a little differently than the one I previously posted to you. Its about 30% of way down from the top of this thread.
Isn’t It kind of strange that comments made in response to the most recent statements of other’s, sometimes do not appear in order from first to last–then the first a the top of a thread and the most recent near the bottom of comments, Why that is done must have to do with the fact that many other commenters addresses are responded ot in order of use–as some still are. others that are present in other parts of he therad of to comments they find in entirely different places
Or we could think for ourselves instead of trusting others to do it for us. Hey what do you know you and the government are trying to do the same thing. “Oh your not smart enough to think on your own, here let me do it for you” How bout not!!!
On the subject of how gun confiscation would be done you would have to ask Sen. Diane Feinstein how she plans on doing it. Here’s a copy of the link to her chilling gun confiscation threat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj4AcjyuV38
In Australia they did it with a mandatory gun buyback program for automatic and semi-automatic weapons, which they outlawed. There is speculation that revolvers and bolt action rifles are next, except in the Outback.
Confiscation a la Australia would most likely not happen here because it would also violate the 4th and 5th amendments in addition to the 2nd. But that’s not to say that people like Diane Feinstein will give up trying to find a way to disarm America.
It’s fine to think for yourself, but that also includes being critical of the NRA, not just the government.
individuals like you seem to dote on your superior knowledge about firearms and why they are necessary for self-defense, (and perhaps rightly so)—so perhaps you could just enlighten us as to just how Obama’s administration or any other administration, can carry out such a nefarious scheme in order to confiscate all of our weapons, and hold us in servitude? Since you are such a irrepressible thinker, I would hope that you can come up with at least one logical and feasible scenario?
Please explain step by step, how the Police, the Pentagon, and all different branches of the military would blindly obey a liberal President (or any other) who ordered them to forcibly confiscate all weapons that are privately owned? What are the insidious political maneuvers that will need to place such before we place such potentially corruptible power in the hands of one man, who will then ask us to unquestionably allow him the use of our extensive military? Isn’t the military also pro-gun, and isn’t it dedicated to protecting our citizens from despots and hostile governments? And since American citizens own many more guns than the military and the police combined, wouldn’t the government’s task unavoidably become no picnic? How many people will die in this fight? How is any President going to remain in power after immediately being served a notice of impeachment? Will all member of congress be at his service–even all Republicans? will the Democrats have a Super majority while the GOP holds virtually no power, (or visa versa)–or could the GOP itself be behind the plot—and to think they are so full of praise for the NRA but would still obey any crazy tyrant that wanted to disarm all American citizens, or who might offer them enough political perks? Military Juntas around the world are regularly overthrown and deposed by other Juntas overnight— which then seize power–do you think our three branches government, built upon checks and balances, will just as easily be ignored?
Yes, in some parallel universe there is always a chance that a single ruling government in a two party Democratic system can just decide to work for one common goal and take down anyone who owns guns. But there’s also a definite probability that all the obsessional focus in regards to not trusting our government, includes is born of some paranoia circulated by the gun crowd.?
Those who are truly open minded, will be open to the faults of both sides, and .will not accept either one without question or, without first thinking for themselves! Please tell us why its wise to oppose even the most mild improvements in background checks, and to insist that such minor changes are obvious attempts to take all of our guns away? Before I take anyone else’s word as infallible, I’d rather think about it for myself, So in regards to your unproven beliefs, here’ a—NOT—right back at you!