"Freedom's Dumbest Army"

[byco42]

I wonder if Byco is referring to WWI where the Germans armed themselves, and after the Treaty of Versailles, which essentially disarmed Germany, then Hitlers rise to power.

I'm referring to the German Weapons Act of 1938. It's out there in plain sight.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm referring to the German Weapons Act of 1938. It's out there in plain sight.

sometimes we get a little sidetracked.

guns had nothing to do with the nazis rise to power or the holocaust. being realistic here, by the time this law was passed, the opportunity to halt the nazi's power by any means other than outright warfare was long gone.

are people ("people" being paranoid insane gun nuts) really trying to compare the Weapons Act, which was enacted after the nazis had already been in power for 4 years, had already seized emergency powers (after the Reichstag fire in '33), had already declared that jewish persons were no longer citizens (1935), and Kristallnacht had already occurred... with universal background checks, assault weapons bans, and limits on magazine capacity? that seems like a pretty disingenuous argument to me.

 

[byco42]

sometimes we get a little sidetracked.

guns had nothing to do with the nazis rise to power or the holocaust. being realistic here, by the time this law was passed, the opportunity to halt the nazi's power by any means other than outright warfare was long gone.

are people ("people" being paranoid insane gun nuts) really trying to compare the Weapons Act, which was enacted after the nazis had already been in power for 4 years, had already seized emergency powers (after the Reichstag fire in '33), had already declared that jewish persons were no longer citizens (1935), and Kristallnacht had already occurred... with universal background checks, assault weapons bans, and limits on magazine capacity? that seems like a pretty disingenuous argument to me.

It's all degrees of the same argument to me.

We are in danger of forgetting that the Bill of Rights reflects
experience with police excesses. It is not only under Nazi rule that
police excesses are inimical to freedom. It is easy to make light of
insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties
when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History
bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty
extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the
end.

Justice Felix Frankfurter (dissenting opinion Davis vs. U.S., 1946)

It is not a reach to consider that guns, because the government permits us to have them, can be removed from our homes in the same way that gasoline coupons were in the case cited above--without a warrant.

 

[Michchamp]

It's all degrees of the same argument to me.

We are in danger of forgetting that the Bill of Rights reflects
experience with police excesses. It is not only under Nazi rule that
police excesses are inimical to freedom. It is easy to make light of
insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties
when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History
bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty
extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the
end.

Justice Felix Frankfurter (dissenting opinion Davis vs. U.S., 1946)

It is not a reach to consider that guns, because the government permits us to have them, can be removed from our homes in the same way that gasoline coupons were in the case cited above--without a warrant.

I agree with you, and with Justice Frankfurter's reasoning generally. Now if only someone was talking about invalidating the 2nd Amendment, or seizing citizens' firearms... you'd have a great counterpoint to them.

 

[Michchamp]

it's unfortunate the National Nuclear Missile Association (NNMA) has not been as successful as the NRA in invalidating all federal attempts to regulate ownership of its arms, though. While, to some extent (but only a small extent) I am glad my neighbor is not permitted to house nuclear weapons in our apartment building, I do wish there was some consistency in how the "shall not be infringed" clause was applied to our right to bear arms.

 

[tinselwolverine]

it's unfortunate the National Nuclear Missile Association (NNMA) has not been as successful as the NRA in invalidating all federal attempts to regulate ownership of its arms, though. While, to some extent (but only a small extent) I am glad my neighbor is not permitted to house nuclear weapons in our apartment building, I do wish there was some consistency in how the "shall not be infringed" clause was applied to our right to bear arms.

Your neighbor doesn't need nuclear weapons to reak mayhem. If he's determined could cause just as much mayhem and calamity with a pair of scissors, or a rock, or a bat, or a really really really really really really really loud drumset, and nothing, but nothing is going to be able to stop him.

Except of course for a good guy with a gun.

 

[Michchamp]

Your neighbor doesn't need nuclear weapons to reak mayhem. If he's determined could cause just as much mayhem and calamity with a pair of scissors, or a rock, or a bat, or a really really really really really really really loud drumset, and nothing, but nothing is going to be able to stop him.

Except of course for a good guy with a gun.

yeah. if it came to that, I guess a warning shot fired through my ceiling and through his floor would quiet things down. but I'd probably just call the police and file a noise complaint. I would not want to tarnish the otherwise sterling reputation of gun owners in this country by being irresponsible and reckless like that

funny, the other day my wife said my upstairs neighbor started angrily pounding on the floor while she was using her new meat tenderizer to prepare some chicken for dinner. I guess she disturbed his afternoon siesta or something.

so a loud meat-tenderizing session is disruptive too. still nothing compared to the detonation of a nuclear weapon though, which is what we were talking about.

 

[byco42]

I agree with you, and with Justice Frankfurter's reasoning generally. Now if only someone was talking about invalidating the 2nd Amendment or seizing citizens' firearms... you'd have a great counterpoint to them.

There's a lot of talk about doing just that.

 

[Michchamp]

There's a lot of talk about doing just that.

on NRA blogs, Storm Front, and other neo-fascist websites, sure. Obama is coming to take derrr gunz. but those people will believe just about anything...

how do you argue with people who claim background checks = seizure? You can't; they're too stupid. It would be like trying to get your dog accepted to Harvard.

 

[Monster]

on NRA blogs, Storm Front, and other neo-fascist websites, sure. Obama is coming to take derrr gunz. but those people will believe just about anything...

how do you argue with people who claim background checks = seizure? You can't; they're too stupid. It would be like trying to get your dog accepted to Harvard.

Funny that the NRA was pushing background checks before Obama came into office. I told a righty friend of mine a few days ago that the reason all of these conspiracies are being flung about is because the Republicans are seeing more and more kids growing up liberal. It scares them, so they've moved far to the right to try to stomp it out while they can. "Obama's after our guns! Register my firearms!?!? They want to know who has guns so they can come take them away! Gays can marry? Marriage will be ruined!!!! Free Healthcare? That's immoral!!!"

Not all Repubs have become like this, but the ones in charge definitely have.

 

[byco42]

on NRA blogs, Storm Front, and other neo-fascist websites, sure. Obama is coming to take derrr gunz. but those people will believe just about anything...

how do you argue with people who claim background checks = seizure? You can't; they're too stupid. It would be like trying to get your dog accepted to Harvard.

No, I mean there's a lot of talk about people wanting it repealed.

 

[tinselwolverine]

No, I mean there's a lot of talk about people wanting it repealed.

A lot of talk by whom?

Are you able to name a single person of any political prominence who is actually advocating the repeal of the 2nd Amendment?

There's a lot of talk by the NRA about people wanting it repealed...but no person is actually saying "I want the 2nd Amendment repealed..."

Just the NRA making it up that people are wanting it replealed...

 

[byco42]

A lot of talk by whom?

Are you able to name a single person of any political prominence who is actually advocating the repeal of the 2nd Amendment?

There's a lot of talk by the NRA about people wanting it repealed...but no person is actually saying "I want the 2nd Amendment repealed..."

Just the NRA making it up that people are wanting it replealed...

I never claimed a politician was publicly advocating the repeal. All I did was google " it's time to repeal the second amendment": http://tinyurl.com/brj98wl

Half my in-laws want it repealed. There are "numerous" websites championing the idea. Who knows? May all these people are making it up. But the discussion is out there. There is an active petition to whitehouse.gov to repeal it as well, with the "assurance" that it "would not infringe upon private gun ownership." We'll see if it gets to 100,000 signatures, which will get it on the website for a response.

 

[Michchamp]

whoa! read all those links about pundits advocating something. crazy. there is a very scary conspiracy to take mah gunz, folks.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I never claimed a politician was publicly advocating the repeal. All I did was google " it's time to repeal the second amendment": http://tinyurl.com/brj98wl
There is an active petition to whitehouse.gov to repeal it as well

Well that's a waste of time. The president - any president - has nothing to do with amending the Constitution.

 

[byco42]

Well that's a waste of time. The president - any president - has nothing to do with amending the Constitution.

Tell me about it. All I'm saying is that there's discussion about repealing it.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Tell me about it. All I'm saying is that there's discussion about repealing it.

Okay, sure.

Lots of internet bloggers post lots of different things on the internet.

They're likely not even going to get the background check legislation through Congress.

So what United States Senator or Representative would dare to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment when they're all too afraid of the NRA to pass a background check law?

 

[byco42]

whoa! read all those links about pundits advocating something. crazy. there is a very scary conspiracy to take mah gunz, folks.

Heard you the first time.

 

[Michchamp]

Okay, sure.

Lots of internet bloggers post lots of different things on the internet.

They're likely not even going to get the background check legislation through Congress.

So what United States Senator or Representative would dare to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment when they're all too afraid of the NRA to pass a background check law?

good question.

that powerful liberal-controlled media, and its alliance with liberal college professors, inner-city minorities, Greenpeace tree-huggers, and aging 60's radicals is strangely powerless when it comes to this issue...

 

[byco42]

Okay, sure.

Lots of internet bloggers post lots of different things on the internet.

They're likely not even going to get the background check legislation through Congress.

So what United States Senator or Representative would dare to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment when they're all too afraid of the NRA to pass a background check law?

You're looking at next week; I'm looking at a generation or two from today.