My compromise for gun control

What rights am I talking about?
So it’s my belief, as it has been in history with other countries holding Communist, or Socialist ideals that first they strip away your firearm rights, then they dig deeper into speech rights, as well as religious rights. Eventually you can’t speak out against the government. You can’t worship how you like freely. I’ll cite China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela for some examples. All have varying degrees of their rights eroded. Dig deeper look at the USSR and Nazi Germany. Same thing!

I’m not advocating violence against police officers. Many would refuse to comply with arresting those not following laws they themselves believe are unconstitutional.

I simply told you go go look them up because I don’t have the time like you do to do all your internet related activities. I define globalists as politicians bought and paid for by some of the richest people in the world. Those who favor the EU and that style of one world government. I’m not a fan of the UN either.

And no I’m not a neo-nazi, white supremacist, or whatever term you liberals like to define their opponents as. I embrace the live and let live mentality until someone believes they have the right to tell them they can’t or don’t need something.

 

You know why you have to keep asking that question, and it’s not getting answered? It’s because we have jobs, families, lives we like. It’s too much to lose.
Your fantasy will probably happen when the door kicking begins.

 

4

Baiting..

You want to delete this one too..

 

and btw, youre not the thread creator .. therefore you shouldnt be deleting comments, gif, memes you dont agree with .. That's not how moderators operate..

 

An old post

This has been addressed before and is akin to the deeply flawed view that if the German Jews had guns there would have been no holocaust also addressed numerous times.

The notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.

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

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

 

Diesel

That has already happened in the US, (look up Eugene Debs and the red scares) but the thing is that it was socialists that went to jail for it and the it was right wingers that supported the move.

The thing is that the Nazis and Communist never made a move to take away guns form their supporters.

But at what point would you?

Or are you indicating from this statement -

Implying you would never would use your gun to try and stop what you see as a ‘tyrannical government’ taking over which begs the question then why have a gun for that reason?

 

Diesel

But I did look it up and I pointed out that I discovered that ‘globalists’ is used by neo-Nazis as a code name for the old Nazis belief in an international conspiracy of Jews.

You tell me that you are not a neo-nazi, white supremacist, and that its great

But you do define globalists - as politicians bought and paid for by some of the richest people in the world.

Like who?

What ‘people’ are you talking about, can you name any and what is your proof?

 

O

You posted a gif with no comment and no substance

I mean if you have got something of substance to say then I think we’d all love to hear it, but what do you mean by just saying ‘bait’

Have you an answer to the question or have you nothing?

I’ll repeat it - when would such gun owners begin killing their political opponents and who would they be?

 

I asked earlier about the lynching’s of black people that happened in parts of the US – that would seem tyrannical behaviour to me an so I asked

Why didn’t the decent and good gun owning white people of those areas (where the lynching’s took place) protect the black people being abused, they had access to guns, they had votes, they filled juries, they could have done a lot to stop what was happening, why didn’t they?

I mean Diesel says that he believes that police would refuse to do unconstitutional things, but in the places where the lynching’s took place the vast majority of police turned a blind eye, I’d think murdering people was against the law as well as unconstitutional.

 

That's actually very well thought out. I have to give you kudos on that. When I saw the title, I thought "here we go again".

But do the opponents really want a fair approach to allowing people to exercise their constitutionally mandated right? Or is the real purpose to punish those people brazen enough to really want to play with those evil and dangerous things?

My first reaction to the title was to require every household to keep at least one arm, in proper working order, with at least one competent operator, and a certain minimum supply of ammo. That seemed to be an appropriate counter to the draconian measures the pro-crime, pro-tyranny crowd would love to impose on law-abiding firearms proponents.

 

How is that question valid? Why would a citizen need to compromise on something the founding of the nation was based on?

 

Yeah, but wouldn't this be tyranny?


It's okay because it's tyranny you can agree with, right?

 

It could happen... I believe the better wording would be to re-establish the republic as founded.

 

Like I said...
Oh wait, that was too complex a thought sequence apparently so no point in repeating.

 

I'll take an anti-tank mortar and a cruise missile, please.

 

Trud

In what way is it well thought out? In what way are the proposals fair? This is not a matter of rewarding or punishing, it’s about managing risk.

I you suggesting that the state buy everyone a gun and force them to have it and learn how to use it? Your way of tackling a problem caused by ease of access to guns is to pump even more guns into the system?

In what way are those seeking prudent gun control measures pro-crime and pro-tyranny?

 

A "complex thought sequence" would start with thinking. Wouldn't it?

Yeah... Your plan isn't very well thought out.

 

--->

 

Seriously? Are you even an American citizen? Take a look at the Constitution. There, you should pay attention to the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments. No further citation needed, and none further will be given. You might, however, try to find where it says that government has the right, power, or authority to determine what your rights are. Good luck finding that. The guys that wrote it said that the government's powers are FEW and well-defined. Nowhere does it say they are many. And no, it is NOT necessary or proper, much less needful to interfere with our rights or disregard them so you can have more power or authority.

As for those of you in Australia or England and other nations: We are Americans. We DON'T want to be like you, nor would we want to imitate you. It's called "freedom", and since you've never had it, I doubt you'll ever comprehend it, any more than a blind person will ever comprehend color.

This thread is pointless.

 

Ah, the ol American perspective. You realize lots of Americans think differently than you? Their feeling of freedom doesn't depend on the right of owning and using an AR15 or bazooka. These discussions are not pointless, they only are if no one would want to listen or try to understand the other.