Gun Confiscation = Civil War?
No, they more used their "reasonable gun control" measures to round up legal gun owners from their previous regimes, people that'd resist. But if you're a violent marauder, you're not going to care about gun laws at all. Mexico has very strict gun laws, some of their guns are coming from America, but not their hand grenades, 40mm high explosive grenades, full auto AKs and M16s, etc. If you're going to be a paramilitary organization, you've outgrown buying guns at the gun shop.
On to RPGs! Also shoulder launched anti aircraft missiles. The Afghans started to beat the Russians after Charlie Wilson was able to get stinger missiles and other high powered military class weapons to them.
ruveyn
Have you told historic about your knowledge, so they can change the books of history?
So according to you, the voted german government gave the non leading members of the NSDAP weapons, so that Hitler and the NSDAP can ursurpate in bavaria against the voted government. If thats what happened, so why had Hitler been arrested and sentenced to jail for trying to conquer Germany by violence if everything was reasonable?
And you think that there had been laws, allowing the members of the NSDAP and their marauders the SA to intimidate members of other political groups and kill them, so they couldnt go to the elections and senate, so that the NSDAP had no voices against them in elections of the senate accroding new laws and so on. Sure...so they did not have the most people in senate, but because of mysterious ways they could do what they wanted, because members of the other fractions decided to have a party instead going to parlament, because the NSDAP asked them so friendly with flowers in their hands.
And yes, all the academic that decided to leave their home where they had been born, many of them from one second to the other without selling their goods, BEFORE the NSDAP took over the government by violence, just thought it would be so much fun being a refugee in a foreing country, having no money. And all the jews and communists and socialist that died or were intimated by violence BEFORE the NSDAP took over, they all had heart attacks. So yes, you could think that it would seem a bit strange, that many people who decides to have heart attacks in uncommon ages, were against the NSDAP and so... but no, Hitler never would have used anything but reasonable gun control.
And yes, the elected austrian president decided to go into exile, because he wanted to go on vacation and was rid of his job. No, no, it was not because Hitler decided to "connect Austria to the "motherland" Germany"" and because experiences in germany already had shown, that Hitler and his NSDAP politics and SA marauders have no problems with killing everyone in their way, ignoring every law of "reasonable gun control". So you think there have been existing laws in Austria, allowing foreign presidents of foreign countries to intimidate the elected president of austria by "reasonable gun control" in their own country? Sure and next we will create laws for "reasonable raping" of austrian school kids for tourists.
But yes i agree, all that dictators and madmen were absolute for weapon control. Like i said noone but them knew better, that lousy weapon controls allow random idiots to take over existing governments as they had themselfs.
Wanna go on? You think Mao did his "long march" to show chinese people, how important it is to stay healthy? Or because he was an armed rebell against the existing government that was chased?
And Stalin...yes sure...russian history needs to be rewritten. No, the Zar (King of Russia) and his family were not killed by communistic armed rebels taking over the country by anything but "reasonable gun control". So no...they have been executed by "reasonable gun controls". Sure, if i was a king of an country, first thing i would invent are laws that allow other people to kill me by "reasonable gun control". So sure, all the communist leader gathered them at the red place in moscow and told their people to stop the revolution because it would be against the existing laws of gun control, so they all went home again, because they had so much love for gun control, they couldnt stand to brake the existing laws.
And the great part the russian navy played in the revolution: So no it was not, because they were armed and trained and communist leaders persuaded them to use their weapons against the russian king. Why should they do that, when this would have been against the existing laws, which they loved so much according to you. No it was because they could sing so nice sailor songs, to motivate the communists.
Yo yes: Hitler and Mao and Stalin and so on, they were all peacefully flower loving pacifists who never thought to conquer their countries abd get leader by illegal weapon use,
Coming into the 1900s, most countries had some sort of weapon registration laws of some kind going on. Not that it meant the countries were tyrannical, but it was simply done out of public safety rationale.
--- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.
[Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)
GunCite does not have the German version, but Hitler continues, "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."
That is what is meant. You are right, in Hitler's case, he did take power "peacefully." Pol Pot not so much, but Pol Pot in fact did use gun owner lists to round up arms. Pol Pot himself didn't use legal guns, though, he just got arms from the Vietnam War going on next door. Cambodia had a gun registration system, like most nations do. Pol Pot when he took power took advantage of the existing laws from French Colonialism. http://www.mercyseat.net/gun_genocide.html
People being forced out of villages and cities were searched thoroughly, and weapons and foreign currency were confiscated. [105] To the limited extent that Cambodians owned guns through the government licensing system, the names of registered gun owners were of course available to the new government. [106]
I'm not going to argue that any nation with gun control is going to be a terrible place to live. Certainly not. There's many nations with gun control that are nice places to live. But gun control, once a tyrant takes power, can be very easily used to suit his purposes.
Gun confiscation *might* start a civil war. No one is talking about doing that, only talking about restricting the future sale of some types of weapons, accessories, etc. which has nothing to do with people's ability to keep weapons that they already own. As for a potential repeal of the 2nd Amendment, that's so unlikely as to be laughable. Repealing it would require a Constitutional amendment, and the barriers to amending the constitution make doing so practically impossible on any issue that is even remotely contentious.
I think what we're seeing right now is reactionary outrage to what happened in New Town. It will almost certainly die down soon. Even now, most people who have changed their minds seem to be rethinking what types of weapons should be allowed to be sold, not banning weapon sales altogether or confiscating guns that are already out there. In a few months there will be even less people with this issue foremost on their minds.
That is all true. However you have been seeing people like Bill O'Reilly and others take stances on this issue that they have never before. Consider that if people were not killing people with guns then no-one else would have any issue with gun-owners being armed to the teeth with whatever weapons they wanted. It's not actually weapons per se that people object to (tiny minority of hippies excepted), its the ongoing use of them to commit murder that is the issue that people have.
So perhaps gun owners and advocates need to be part of finding a solution to these problems, as the NRA has suggested.
Last edited by nostromo on 19 Dec 2012, 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think banning assault rifles would barely reduce gun violence. To begin with, ARs aren't used in crime as much as much smaller firearms. It may have to do with bring unable to hide them in your person. They are used in at it or less than 10% of all homicides.
_________________
Life is not designed to be fair.....BUT THAT'S NOT FAIR!
MBTI- ISTP
That may be true overall but in the crazy-man mass murders they seem to be a weapon of choice.
Let me add one more thing. Yes, banning ARs from gun store shelves sounds like a good idea, but black market ARs are plentiful and if a ban passes, more BM ARs would be sold to be used in crime or even any armed conflict. This is my opinion that is within the realms of reality.
_________________
Life is not designed to be fair.....BUT THAT'S NOT FAIR!
MBTI- ISTP
Banning any inanimate object is stupid. I won't elaborate here because myself and others already have in the current batch of "gunz-r-bad" thread.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
That may be true overall but in the crazy-man mass murders they seem to be a weapon of choice.
The chances of dying in a school shooting type of attack in America are literally one in a million.
You have triple the chance of dying in a traffic accident as being murdered in USA.
4.2 per 100K 12,996 total murders in USA.
Traffic fatalities in USA:
12.3 per 100K 33,808 total traffic deaths in USA
Am sorry but you Americans take your guns way too damn Seriously.
Admittedly if 90 out of a 100 people had guns in Northern Ireland we'd have our freedom by now.
_________________
Your Aspie score: 56 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 144 of 200
You are very likely neurotypical
That may be true overall but in the crazy-man mass murders they seem to be a weapon of choice.
The chances of dying in a school shooting type of attack in America are literally one in a million.
You have triple the chance of dying in a traffic accident as being murdered in USA.
4.2 per 100K 12,996 total murders in USA.
Traffic fatalities in USA:
12.3 per 100K 33,808 total traffic deaths in USA
Shhhhh......
They don't want to hear that. It robs them of their case and more importantly their agenda.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Admittedly if 90 out of a 100 people had guns in Northern Ireland we'd have our freedom by now.
We take our guns seriously because we don't want to end up in a similar situation.
It started with a gun turn in, now you have Closed Circuit cameras on every street corner.
_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?
That may be true overall but in the crazy-man mass murders they seem to be a weapon of choice.
The chances of dying in a school shooting type of attack in America are literally one in a million.
You have triple the chance of dying in a traffic accident as being murdered in USA.
4.2 per 100K 12,996 total murders in USA.
Traffic fatalities in USA:
12.3 per 100K 33,808 total traffic deaths in USA
Shhhhh......
They don't want to hear that. It robs them of their case and more importantly their agenda.
To be fair, the type of emotional logic being displayed now is how encroachment of our civil liberties, killing hundreds of thousands of people in other countries, and being at war over a decade was thought out.
JUST SAYING.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Civil suits related to insurrection |
17 Feb 2024, 2:29 am |
MTG Says Trump Civil Trial Judge "Should Be Disrobed!" |
23 Feb 2024, 3:56 pm |
"Civil War" 2024 movie |
24 Mar 2024, 11:33 am |