***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[[icon]]

spam bots

Pathetic move by whoever is behind this.

 

[RCon]

spam bots

Most transparent administration ever.

 

[kface]

Fight, cry and whine all you want but this whole 'debate' is for current times. Much like slavory, racism, gay marriage etc...gun control is coming. The more the noose tighens the more the people scream and make noise...plays out the same every time.

 

[Jewell]

Fight, cry and whine all you want but this whole 'debate' is for current times. Much like slavory, racism, gay marriage etc...gun control is coming. The more the noose tighens the more the people scream and make noise...plays out the same every time.

How are you defining "gun control"? What are the terms?And does your use of apostrophes around 'debate' suggest that this is a non-debateable topic, and the argument against gun control has absolutely no merit?

 

[Tchula]

Let us not forget that gun registration has let to gun confiscation in Canada in recent years... just like in Nazi Germany. My link

 

[timschochet]

Let us not forget that gun registration has let to gun confiscation in Canada in recent years... just like in Nazi Germany. My link

Not this lie again. How many times must this be debunked before people stop saying it?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Fight, cry and whine all you want but this whole 'debate' is for current times. Much like slavory, racism, gay marriage etc...gun control is coming. The more the noose tighens the more the people scream and make noise...plays out the same every time.

How are you defining "gun control"? What are the terms?And does your use of apostrophes around 'debate' suggest that this is a non-debateable topic, and the argument against gun control has absolutely no merit?

I think the apostrophes means he's serious about this. REALLY serious.

 

[[icon]]

Fight, cry and whine all you want but this whole 'debate' is for current times. Much like slavory, racism, gay marriage etc...gun control is coming. The more the noose tighens the more the people scream and make noise...plays out the same every time.

So owning guns = owning black people?

 

[Jewell]

Fight, cry and whine all you want but this whole 'debate' is for current times. Much like slavory, racism, gay marriage etc...gun control is coming. The more the noose tighens the more the people scream and make noise...plays out the same every time.

So owning guns = owning black people?

If you read his screed as written, he could be arguing that slavery is about to make a comeback.

 

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

Let us not forget that gun registration has let to gun confiscation in Canada in recent years... just like in Nazi Germany. My link

Not this lie again. How many times must this be debunked before people stop saying it?

So you are saying the Nazis did not pass legislation that disarmed Jews?This is new...tell me more.

 

[timschochet]

Let us not forget that gun registration has let to gun confiscation in Canada in recent years... just like in Nazi Germany. My link

Not this lie again. How many times must this be debunked before people stop saying it?

So you are saying the Nazis did not pass legislation that disarmed Jews?This is new...tell me more.

No thanks. You can go back and look at what I wrote earlier in detail in this subject. Or you can remain ignorant. Your call.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Tim has caused me to go out and purchase two rifles.

 

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

Let us not forget that gun registration has let to gun confiscation in Canada in recent years... just like in Nazi Germany. My link

Not this lie again. How many times must this be debunked before people stop saying it?

So you are saying the Nazis did not pass legislation that disarmed Jews?This is new...tell me more.

No thanks. You can go back and look at what I wrote earlier in detail in this subject. Or you can remain ignorant. Your call.

So you are saying the Jews were not disarmed. And I'm the one ignorant here?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Let us not forget that gun registration has let to gun confiscation in Canada in recent years... just like in Nazi Germany. My link

Not this lie again. How many times must this be debunked before people stop saying it?

Tim ignores the fact that the Nazi's confiscated weapons and that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was modeled after German Gun Control laws. 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition (before Nazis came into power) required all firearms to be registered. When Hitler came into power, the existing lists were used for confiscating weapons.Hitler:

"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."

JPFO knows who implanted into American law cancerous ideas from the Nazi Weapons Law.

The likely culprit is a former senator, now deceased. We have documentary proof -- see below -- that he had the original text of the Nazi Weapons Law in his possession 4 months before the bill that became GCA ’68 was signed into law.

This former senator was a senior member of the U.S. team that helped to prosecute Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, Germany, in 1945-46. That is probably where he found out about the Nazi Weapons Law. He may have gotten a copy of it then, or at a later date. We cannot imagine why any U.S. lawmaker would own original texts of Nazi laws. To find out his name, read on.

With this hard evidence in your hands and in your head, you can destroy cancerous "gun control". You can challenge anyone who backs "gun control". You can show them the Nazi ideas, line by line.

The parallels between the Nazi law and GCA ’68 will leap at you from the page. For example, law abiding firearm owners in Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey must carry identification cards based on formats from the Nazi Weapons Law. Nazi based laws have no place in America. Thousands of Americans died or were wounded in the war to wipe out the Nazis. They did not suffer or die so that Hitler's ideas could live on in America and kill more Americans. Remember Killeen, Texas! The 23 who died in Luby's Cafeteria there died because they obeyed Nazi inspired "gun control" laws. The law forced them, unarmed, to face an armed madman.

To destroy "gun control" before more law abiding Americans are murdered by criminals or madmen helped by "gun control", you need to get hold of the evidence as presented in "Gun Control": Gateway to Tyranny. You can then challenge the media, the most aggressive backers of "gun control". Ask media personalities in your city or town why they back Nazi based laws. You can help to erase "gun control", Hitler's last legacy.

GCA ’68 puts your life at risk right now. You have a constitutional civil right to be armed in order to protect yourself, because under U.S law the police have no duty to protect the average person:

"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov't) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order"

(Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]).

The Supreme Court last dealt with this issue in 1856; the 1982 decision states the position in modern language. The laws of virtually every state parallel federal law (see JPFO Special Report Dial 911 and Die! covered in Guns & Ammo, July 1992). This has been so ever since the Constitution was adopted in 1791. As a result, the framers of the Second Amendment deliberately created (guaranteed) an individual civil right to be armed. It is your only reliable defense against criminals. GCA ’68 ties your hands and keeps you from carrying out your legal duty to ensure your own self defense. GCA ’68 thus undermines a pillar of U.S. law and helps criminals to kill law abiding Americans. Hitler would be pleased.

Thus, GCA ’68 marked a new approach to "gun control". It replaced the Federal Firearms Act (June 30, 1938), which was based on the federal power to regulate interstate commerce. The 1938 law required firearms dealers to get a federal license (which then cost $1). Only dealers could ship firearms across state lines. Ordinary people could receive shipments from dealers.

In GCA ’68 the government required that in almost all cases only dealers could send and receive firearms across state lines. This ended "mail order" sales of firearms by law abiding persons who are not licensed dealers. GCA ’68 hits you even harder. Congress gave federal bureaucrats in Washington D.C., the power to decide what kinds of firearms you can own. The framers of GCA ’68 borrowed an idea -- that certain firearms are "hunting weapons" -- from the Nazi Weapons Law (Section 21 and Section 32 of the Regulations, page 61 and page 73, respectively, of "Gun Control": Gateway to Tyranny). The equivalent U.S. term, "sporting purpose," was used to classify firearms. But it was not defined anywhere in GCA ’68. Thus, bureaucrats were empowered to ban whole classes of firearms. They have, in fact, done so.

We wanted to know the source of these new ideas. On reading "Dial 911 and Die!" a JPFO member told us he had seen an article -- by Alan Stang in 'Review of the News,' October 4, 1967 (pages 15-20) -- the author of which felt that the Nazi Weapons Law was the model for GCA ’68. We found the article. But Stang did not reproduce the Nazi law, so we could not check his conclusions.

We started to hunt for the text of the Nazi Weapons Law. We eventually found it, in the law library of an Ivy League university.

Until 1943-44, the German government published its laws and regulations in the 'Reichsgesetzblatt,' roughly the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Register. Carefully shelved by law librarians, the 1938 issues of this German government publication had gathered a lot of dust. In the 'Reichsgesetzblatt' issue for the week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). It gave Hitler's Nazi party a stranglehold on the Germans, many of whom did not support the Nazis. We found that the Nazis did not invent "gun control" in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun control and then perfected it: they invented handgun control.

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in 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 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the GCA ’68, we concluded that the framers of the GCA ’68 -- lacking any basis in American law to sharply cut back the civil rights of law abiding Americans -- drew on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.

Finding the Nazi Weapons Law whetted our appetite. We wanted to know who implanted this Nazi cancer in America. We began by probing the backgrounds of lawmakers who championed "gun control". We focused on those whose bills became part of GCA ’68. GCA ’68 as enacted closely tracks proposals dating to August 1963. We felt that if the culprit were a lawmaker -- or a congressional staffer -- he or she would know Germany, German law and possibly even speak German. He or she probably would have spent time in Germany on business or during military service. Alternatively, if the culprit were not a member of Congress or a staffer, there would be testimony at the hearings to that effect.

Most potential suspects were quickly eliminated; they had no apparent ties to Germany. But one lawmaker caught our attention.

An old "Who's Who" entry showed he had been a senior member of the U.S. team that prosecuted German war criminals at Nuremberg in 1945-46. Thus, he had lived in Germany just after the Nazi period. His official duties required him to look at Nazi records, including Nazi laws. In 1963 he led the effort to greatly expand the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

We then got a break. We told a legal scholar of our findings. He was intrigued. He sent us an extract from the record of hearings held a few months prior to the enactment of GCA ’68. At the end of June 1968, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to investigate Juvenile Delinquency -- chaired by Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) -- held hearings on bills: (1) "To Require the Registration of Firearms" (S.3604). (2) "To Disarm Lawless Persons" (S.3634) and (3) "To Provide for the Establishment of a National Firearms Registry" (S.3637), among others.

U.S. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) testified at these Senate hearings on "gun control". Senator Joseph D. Tydings (D-MD) chaired some of these hearings, in Dodd's absence.

Rep. Dingell expressed concern that if firearms registration were required, it might lead to confiscation of firearms, as had happened in Nazi Germany. Tydings angrily accused Rep. Dingell of using "scare tactics":

"Are you inferring that our system here, gun registration or licensing, would in any way be comparable to the Nazi regime in Germany, where they had a secret police, and a complete takeover?"

Rep. Dingell backed away.

(Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Committee on the Judiciary, 90th Congress, 2nd Session, June 26, 27 and 28 and July 8, 9 and 10. 1968, pp. 479-80, 505-6 cited as Subcommittee Hearings.)

Tydings later inserted into the hearing record various documents, "concerning the history of Nazism and gun confiscation."

Exhibit No. 62 (see reproduction) is fascinating. This letter -- dated July 12, 1968 -- is to Subcommittee Chairman Dodd from Lewis C. Coffin, Law Librarian at the Library of Congress. Coffin wrote:

" ... we are enclosing herewith a translation of the Law on Weapons of March 18, 1938, prepared by Dr. William Solyom-Fekete of [the European Law Division -- ed.] as well as the Xerox of the original German text which you supplied" (Subcommittee Hearings, p. 489, emphasis added).

This letter makes it public knowledge that at the end of June 1968 -- 4 months before GCA ’68 was enacted -- Senator Thomas J. Dodd, now deceased, personally owned a copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law.

Why did Dodd own the original German text of any Nazi law? Why did he make known that he owned it?

The Library of Congress then had (and still has) the ’Reichsgesetzblatt’ in its collection. The Library of Congress translator, Dr. Solyom-Fekete, could easily have used the Library of Congress’ own copy.

Any member of Congress who wanted to read the Nazi Weapons Law need only have asked for it to be produced from the shelves of the Library of Congress and for it to be translated by Library of Congress experts. Why should any member of Congress ever have owned the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law?

Without access to Tom Dodd's personal papers, archived under his heirs’ control, we unfortunately cannot offer definite answers.

Dodd could have acquired the German text of the Nazi Weapons Law during his time at Nuremberg. But he had no need to do so.

Dodd did not personally handle the prosecution of Nazi Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick, who signed the Nazi Weapons Law. The case against Frick was presented by Robert M.W. Kempner, Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States (see ’Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal,’ cited as TMWC, Vol. V, pp. 352-67, Nuremberg, Germany, 1947).

Nor should the Nazi Weapons Law otherwise have come to Dodd's attention. The Nazi Weapons Law was not used as evidence against Frick (see Kempner's speech, TMWC, V, pp. 352-67 and 'Index of Laws, Decrees, Orders, Directives, and the Administration of Justice in Nazi Germany and Nazi Dominated Countries', TMWC, Vol. XXIII, pp. 430-33). The Nazi Weapons Law is not listed among documents submitted as evidence to the Tribunal by the American prosecutors (see Vol. XXIV, pp. 98-169).

The prosecutors at Nuremberg doubtless knew of the Nazi Weapons Law. They probably saw it in the ’Reichsgesetzblatt.’ On the same day that Nazi Interior Minister Frick signed the Weapons Law, March 18, 1938, he signed another law governing security measures in newly annexed Austria. This law concerning Austria appeared in the 'Reichsgesetzblatt' -- directly in front of the Weapons Law -- and was introduced into evidence at Nuremberg (’Reichsgesetzblatt’ 1938, I, p. 262; the Nazi Weapons Law was published in the same volume, p. 265; see TMWC, Vol. V, p.358 for reference to law concerning Austria).

Thus, the Nazi Weapons Law appeared to have no historical merit at Nuremberg and should not have attracted anyone’s notice, certainly not to the extent of causing anyone to want to keep a copy of it as a separate document.

If Dodd got his copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law during his time at Nuremberg, it likely was part of a collection of documents, for example, issues of the ’Reichsgesetzblatt’.

But if he acquired the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law after his service at Nuremberg, he must have done so for a very specific reason. The Nazi Weapons Law plainly did not figure at Nuremberg.

We may safely conclude it had little, if any, interest for those interested in the history of the Nazis’ rise to power. For example, the Nazi Weapons Law is not mentioned at all in William L. Shirer’s very thorough study of Nazi Germany, ’The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’ (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1950).

At the hearings held by Dodd’s subcommittee at the end of June 1968, Rep. Dingell had objected to the firearms registration provision then being discussed. Dodd may have offered his copy of the Nazi Weapons Law to show that the specific proposal did not resemble anything in the Nazi law.

He may not have realized that he was revealing a broader truth; that the whole fabric of GCA ’68 was based on the Nazi Weapons Law, even if the specific registration proposal was not so based.

Alternatively, Dodd may not have cared whether or not anyone knew that he had the German text of the Nazi Weapons Law. He doubtless knew that months would pass before the hearing record was printed and so generally available for scrutiny. Thus, even if anyone then noticed the parallels between the two laws, the bill would already have become law.

Rep. Dingell does not appear to have pursued the matter: the firearms registration provision was not included in GCA ’68. The Congress was stampeded on "gun control" by public enthusiasm. Martin Luther King had been murdered on April 4, 1968, and Robert F. Kennedy had been murdered on June 6, 1968.

We are not the first to have seen this hearing record. But we appear to be the first to have recognized its importance. This hearing record suggests strongly that the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) himself implanted the Nazi Weapons Law into American law, or, at very least, helped others to do so.

Now you know the ugly truth about the roots of GCA ’68. But you need to see -- with your own eyes -- the hard evidence of the Nazi roots of "gun control" in America presented in "Gun Control": Gateway to Tyranny.

If you want to destroy "gun control", you can use this book to do it.

The Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, cleared the way for World War II and Nazi genocide against the Jews, Gypsies and 7,000,000 other people.

JPFO

 

[[icon]]

Tim has caused me to go out and purchase two rifles.

I've purchased a pistol and hundreds of rounds of ammo since giving up on this thread a month ago.

 

[timschochet]

Tim has caused me to go out and purchase two rifles.

I've purchased a pistol and hundreds of rounds of ammo since giving up on this thread a month ago.

I didn't realize you guys consider me that much of a threat.

 

[timschochet]

So you are saying the Jews were not disarmed. And I'm the one ignorant here?

Tell you what. Before I answer you, I'll let you go first. Please describe how well-armed the Jews of Germany (and Eastern Europe for that matter) were prior to the Nazis. I'll hang up and listen.

 

[Mister CIA]

Are there guns in heaven? It's important that I know.

 

[timschochet]

Are there guns in heaven? It's important that I know.

Let me give you a hint- there are more guns currently in heaven than there were among Jews in Germany prior to the Nazis.

 

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

Are there guns in heaven? It's important that I know.

Let me give you a hint- there are more guns currently in heaven than there were among Jews in Germany prior to the Nazis.

Evidence?

 

[timschochet]

Are there guns in heaven? It's important that I know.

Let me give you a hint- there are more guns currently in heaven than there were among Jews in Germany prior to the Nazis.

Evidence?

Do you know anything about the Jews of Germany? Their background, professions, lifestyles? Do you have any idea of their history, of the way they lived in the years prior to the Nazis? You see, I do, because my great-grandfather was one of them. So I know a lot about them. At the time the Nazis came around, the Jews were only just over 100 years removed from the Napoleonic era and religious emancipation. While during the 19th century they sought assimilation, they remained very religious. At that time, in the years prior to the establishment of Israel (post 1945) the vast majority of Jews interpreted the Talmud as teaching that the use of force, even in self-defense, was against God's Law. Essentially the Jews were pacifist- not only did they not own guns, they were horrified by the use of guns. Jews lived in big cities because their presence was not welcome in rural Germany. Except for the very few who were members of the Army during World War I (less than 1%), most Jews had no knowledge of firearms whatsoever. There were almost no Jews in the police. In fact, it was Jewish members of the Weimar government who pushed for gun control during the 1920s (one of these, Walter Rathenau was assassinated for his effort.) When Hitler came to power, he repealed most of these gun control laws. It's true that the Nazis imposed new controls restricting Jews from owning guns, but these were easy to enforce since ALMOST NO JEWS OWNED GUNS IN THE FIRST PLACE!! And that's why this argument, constantly made by gun nuts, about the Jews and Nazi Germany is so uninformed and absurd.

 

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

Are there guns in heaven? It's important that I know.

Let me give you a hint- there are more guns currently in heaven than there were among Jews in Germany prior to the Nazis.

Evidence?

Do you know anything about the Jews of Germany? Their background, professions, lifestyles? Do you have any idea of their history, of the way they lived in the years prior to the Nazis? You see, I do, because my great-grandfather was one of them. So I know a lot about them. At the time the Nazis came around, the Jews were only just over 100 years removed from the Napoleonic era and religious emancipation. While during the 19th century they sought assimilation, they remained very religious. At that time, in the years prior to the establishment of Israel (post 1945) the vast majority of Jews interpreted the Talmud as teaching that the use of force, even in self-defense, was against God's Law. Essentially the Jews were pacifist- not only did they not own guns, they were horrified by the use of guns. Jews lived in big cities because their presence was not welcome in rural Germany. Except for the very few who were members of the Army during World War I (less than 1%), most Jews had no knowledge of firearms whatsoever. There were almost no Jews in the police. In fact, it was Jewish members of the Weimar government who pushed for gun control during the 1920s (one of these, Walter Rathenau was assassinated for his effort.) When Hitler came to power, he repealed most of these gun control laws. It's true that the Nazis imposed new controls restricting Jews from owning guns, but these were easy to enforce since ALMOST NO JEWS OWNED GUNS IN THE FIRST PLACE!! And that's why this argument, constantly made by gun nuts, about the Jews and Nazi Germany is so uninformed and absurd.

So your anecdotal evidence is enough? Bull####.

 

[timschochet]

Are there guns in heaven? It's important that I know.

Let me give you a hint- there are more guns currently in heaven than there were among Jews in Germany prior to the Nazis.

Evidence?

Do you know anything about the Jews of Germany? Their background, professions, lifestyles? Do you have any idea of their history, of the way they lived in the years prior to the Nazis? You see, I do, because my great-grandfather was one of them. So I know a lot about them. At the time the Nazis came around, the Jews were only just over 100 years removed from the Napoleonic era and religious emancipation. While during the 19th century they sought assimilation, they remained very religious. At that time, in the years prior to the establishment of Israel (post 1945) the vast majority of Jews interpreted the Talmud as teaching that the use of force, even in self-defense, was against God's Law. Essentially the Jews were pacifist- not only did they not own guns, they were horrified by the use of guns. Jews lived in big cities because their presence was not welcome in rural Germany. Except for the very few who were members of the Army during World War I (less than 1%), most Jews had no knowledge of firearms whatsoever. There were almost no Jews in the police. In fact, it was Jewish members of the Weimar government who pushed for gun control during the 1920s (one of these, Walter Rathenau was assassinated for his effort.) When Hitler came to power, he repealed most of these gun control laws. It's true that the Nazis imposed new controls restricting Jews from owning guns, but these were easy to enforce since ALMOST NO JEWS OWNED GUNS IN THE FIRST PLACE!! And that's why this argument, constantly made by gun nuts, about the Jews and Nazi Germany is so uninformed and absurd.

So your anecdotal evidence is enough? Bull####.

JFC, why do I even bother? I give up;go on believing your nonsense.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

So you are saying the Jews were not disarmed. And I'm the one ignorant here?

Tell you what. Before I answer you, I'll let you go first. Please describe how well-armed the Jews of Germany (and Eastern Europe for that matter) were prior to the Nazis. I'll hang up and listen.

That's rich. So now you are stating they weren't "well armed", trying to quantify the amount of guns since it is obvious the registration lists from the 1928 law were used to aid confiscation. The catalyst to Kristallnacht was when Herschel Grynszpan, a 17 year old Jew living in Paris, shot and killed a member of the German Embassy staff there in retaliation for the poor treatment his father and his family suffered at the hands of the Nazis in Germany. Pacifists you say? I'd say the Nazis saw a Jew uprising as a legitimate threat and its only natural to want to disarm them and/or prevent them from attaining arms to quell the threat.

 

[Otis]

Page 157 and folks are still mentioning Nazi Germany in here. Going exactly as expected. See you at page 300, I'm certain you'll have it all ironed out by then.

 

[Rayderr]

This whole gun debate is rather analogous of the abortion debate.Supreme Court says people have a right to them.One group is unhappy with that ruling.That group uses emotion, not fact, to try to pass laws that slowly whittle away at the right the Supreme Court says we have.Group won't stop until they achieve their goal and completely remove that right from people.All in the name of "saving lives", when in reality, it's just imposing their beliefs onto other people.

 

[Blick]

This whole gun debate is rather analogous of the abortion debate.Supreme Court says people have a right to them.One group is unhappy with that ruling.That group uses emotion, not fact, to try to pass laws that slowly whittle away at the right the Supreme Court says we have.Group won't stop until they achieve their goal and completely remove that right from people.All in the name of "saving lives", when in reality, it's just imposing their beliefs onto other people.

Abortion is the act of taking what some consider a life, or what will become a life. Every abortion ends a life or what will be a life. I'm way too lazy to look this up, but the number of abortions >>>>>> than gun homicides. Your premise that the process by which these "rights" are being taken away may be sound, but I don't its a good comparision.

 

[[icon]]

Tim has caused me to go out and purchase two rifles.

I've purchased a pistol and hundreds of rounds of ammo since giving up on this thread a month ago.

I didn't realize you guys consider me that much of a threat.

You could take it as that... orrrrrr the correct way.

 

[Rayderr]

This whole gun debate is rather analogous of the abortion debate.

Supreme Court says people have a right to them.

One group is unhappy with that ruling.

That group uses emotion, not fact, to try to pass laws that slowly whittle away at the right the Supreme Court says we have.

Group won't stop until they achieve their goal and completely remove that right from people.

All in the name of "saving lives", when in reality, it's just imposing their beliefs onto other people.

Abortion is the act of taking what some consider a life, or what will become a life. Every abortion ends a life or what will be a life. I'm way too lazy to look this up, but the number of abortions >>>>>> than gun homicides. Your premise that the process by which these "rights" are being taken away may be sound, but I don't its a good comparision.

That's irrelevant.

 

[Blick]

This whole gun debate is rather analogous of the abortion debate.

Supreme Court says people have a right to them.

One group is unhappy with that ruling.

That group uses emotion, not fact, to try to pass laws that slowly whittle away at the right the Supreme Court says we have.

Group won't stop until they achieve their goal and completely remove that right from people.

All in the name of "saving lives", when in reality, it's just imposing their beliefs onto other people.

Abortion is the act of taking what some consider a life, or what will become a life. Every abortion ends a life or what will be a life. I'm way too lazy to look this up, but the number of abortions >>>>>> than gun homicides. Your premise that the process by which these "rights" are being taken away may be sound, but I don't its a good comparision.

That's irrelevant.

Its relevant from a "saving lives" perspective.

 

[Rayderr]

This whole gun debate is rather analogous of the abortion debate.

Supreme Court says people have a right to them.

One group is unhappy with that ruling.

That group uses emotion, not fact, to try to pass laws that slowly whittle away at the right the Supreme Court says we have.

Group won't stop until they achieve their goal and completely remove that right from people.

All in the name of "saving lives", when in reality, it's just imposing their beliefs onto other people.

Abortion is the act of taking what some consider a life, or what will become a life. Every abortion ends a life or what will be a life. I'm way too lazy to look this up, but the number of abortions >>>>>> than gun homicides. Your premise that the process by which these "rights" are being taken away may be sound, but I don't its a good comparision.

That's irrelevant.

Its relevant from a "saving lives" perspective.

saving lives is saving lives. Especially when both sides seem to have the "every life saved is a victory" mentality.

 

[RCon]

Are there guns in heaven? It's important that I know.

Let me give you a hint- there are more guns currently in heaven than there were among Jews in Germany prior to the Nazis.

Evidence?

Do you know anything about the Jews of Germany? Their background, professions, lifestyles? Do you have any idea of their history, of the way they lived in the years prior to the Nazis? You see, I do, because my great-grandfather was one of them. So I know a lot about them. At the time the Nazis came around, the Jews were only just over 100 years removed from the Napoleonic era and religious emancipation. While during the 19th century they sought assimilation, they remained very religious. At that time, in the years prior to the establishment of Israel (post 1945) the vast majority of Jews interpreted the Talmud as teaching that the use of force, even in self-defense, was against God's Law. Essentially the Jews were pacifist- not only did they not own guns, they were horrified by the use of guns. Jews lived in big cities because their presence was not welcome in rural Germany. Except for the very few who were members of the Army during World War I (less than 1%), most Jews had no knowledge of firearms whatsoever. There were almost no Jews in the police. In fact, it was Jewish members of the Weimar government who pushed for gun control during the 1920s (one of these, Walter Rathenau was assassinated for his effort.) When Hitler came to power, he repealed most of these gun control laws. It's true that the Nazis imposed new controls restricting Jews from owning guns, but these were easy to enforce since ALMOST NO JEWS OWNED GUNS IN THE FIRST PLACE!! And that's why this argument, constantly made by gun nuts, about the Jews and Nazi Germany is so uninformed and absurd.

I'm going to need a link regarding the number of guns in heaven before I can judge the math on this one.

 

[kface]

Its awesome the amount of crazy in here...

 

[[icon]]

Scooped up a couple hundred more rounds of 9mm (Speer Lawman 124gr TMJ) for under 32/cents a round and then 500 rounds of Herters 114gr FMJ (rebranded Sellier & Bellot) for under 28/cents a round.

 

[timschochet]

Scooped up a couple hundred more rounds of 9mm (Speer Lawman 124gr TMJ) for under 32/cents a round and then 500 rounds of Herters 114gr FMJ (rebranded Sellier & Bellot) for under 28/cents a round.

We're you thinking of me?

 

[[icon]]

Scooped up a couple hundred more rounds of 9mm (Speer Lawman 124gr TMJ) for under 32/cents a round and then 500 rounds of Herters 114gr FMJ (rebranded Sellier & Bellot) for under 28/cents a round.

We're you thinking of me?

You're a creepy fella... not sure why you'd want that. No... I was thinking about how much fun it will be to hit the range without having to be limited to $18 50ct ziploc baggies of reloads they sell onsite.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Not sure if this has been posted but for anyone who wants a true historical accounting of the Nazi views on gun control, you should watch this documentary:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5-fr33RQ6s

 

[StrikeS2k]

Gotta love Joe Biden:

you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door

http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/guns/2013/02/gun-control-joe-biden-interview

 

[BassNBrew]

Scooped up a couple hundred more rounds of 9mm (Speer Lawman 124gr TMJ) for under 32/cents a round and then 500 rounds of Herters 114gr FMJ (rebranded Sellier & Bellot) for under 28/cents a round.

Ammo is scare around here. Pistol and .22 caliber shelves are bare.

 

[[icon]]

Scooped up a couple hundred more rounds of 9mm (Speer Lawman 124gr TMJ) for under 32/cents a round and then 500 rounds of Herters 114gr FMJ (rebranded Sellier & Bellot) for under 28/cents a round.

Ammo is scare around here. Pistol and .22 caliber shelves are bare.

http://slickguns.comhttp://gunbot.netYWIA

 

[5 digit know nothing]

A night on the town with 5 digits, cookie monster, and ATC1

 

[Jewell]

Previously unreleased Nixon recordings reveal...

Nixon wished for total handgun ban

March 9, 2013

WASHINGTON — Few presidents in modern times have been as interested in gun control as Richard Nixon, of all people. He proposed ridding the market of Saturday night specials, contemplated banning handguns altogether and refused to pander to gun owners by feigning interest in their weapons.

Several previously unreported Oval Office recordings and White House memos from the Nixon years show a conservative president who at times appeared willing to take on the National Rifle Association, a powerful gun lobby then as now, even as his aides worried about the political ramifications.

“I don’t know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house,” Nixon said in a taped conversation with aides. “The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth.” He asked why “can’t we go after handguns, period?”

Nixon went on: “I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it.” But “people should not have handguns.” He laced his comments with obscenities, as was typical.

Nixon made his remarks in the Oval Office on May 16, 1972, the day after a would-be assassin shot and paralyzed segregationist presidential candidate George Wallace. As president, Nixon never publicly called for a ban on all handguns. Instead, he urged Congress to pass more modest legislation banning Saturday night specials, which were cheaply made, easily concealed and often used by criminals.

Nixon made his remarks in the Oval Office on May 16, 1972, the day after a would-be assassin shot and paralyzed segregationist presidential candidate George Wallace. As president, Nixon never publicly called for a ban on all handguns. Instead, he urged Congress to pass more modest legislation banning Saturday night specials, which were cheaply made, easily concealed and often used by criminals.

Not all of the president’s men appeared to share his passion on the issue. The recordings and memos show that Nixon administration officials saw gun control as a political loser.

FULL ARTICLE

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Colorado Sheriff Says Dems Are Using Salary Threats to Pressure Sheriffs to Support Gun Control Bills

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Colorado Sheriff Says Dems Are Using Salary Threats to Pressure Sheriffs to Support Gun Control Bills

After the interview, Maketa took to his Facebook page to clarify that the email did not come directly from Colorado Democrats:Hearsay.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Colorado Sheriff Says Dems Are Using Salary Threats to Pressure Sheriffs to Support Gun Control Bills

After the interview, Maketa took to his Facebook page to clarify that the email did not come directly from Colorado Democrats:Hearsay.

I want to make something very clear; I have not been directly threatened or coerced in any way nor would I tolerate any threat. A message delivered verbally to a representative of the Colorado Sheriff’s Association basically stated that the Senate Dems are very upset with the Colorado Sheriffs opposing the gun legislation proposed by the Senate Democrats. This message insinuated that this could negatively affect the salary bill which has been delayed and put off by the Democrats with the excuse that they would expect bipartisan support. I do believe the salary proposal is being held hostage and I believe that if they’re willing to send gun control measures without bipartisan support then they should be willing to take a stand as the majority leadership and follow a democrat-created commission’s recommendations.

 

[timschochet]

Gun ownership seems to be dropping rapidly:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html

Apparently those stories we've all read in recent weeks about gun sales going crazy were limited mostly to people who already own guns, and who had paranoid fears about new gun control laws.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Gun ownership seems to be dropping rapidly:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.htmlApparently those stories we've all read in recent weeks about gun sales going crazy were limited mostly to people who already own guns, and who had paranoid fears about new gun control laws.

Maybe people have just become more wary about telling pollsters that they have guns.

 

[timschochet]

Gun ownership seems to be dropping rapidly:

http://www.nytimes.c...rvey-shows.html

Apparently those stories we've all read in recent weeks about gun sales going crazy were limited mostly to people who already own guns, and who had paranoid fears about new gun control laws.

Maybe people have just become more wary about telling pollsters that they have guns.

There's probably a few of these out there, but pollsters are usually able to adjust for this sort of thing. I'm betting the numbers are pretty accurate.

 

[timschochet]

Meanwhile, Georgia is at it again:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ga-debates-relaxing-gun-laws-mentally-ill-18677329

While some states push to tighten gun control laws after the Connecticut school massacre, lawmakers in gun-friendly Georgia want to ease rules preventing some mentally ill people from getting licenses to carry firearms.

Legislators in Georgia's House voted 117-56 on Thursday to allow people who have voluntarily sought inpatient treatment for mental illness or substance abuse to get licenses. The same bill would force officials to check on whether applicants have received involuntary treatment in the past five years before issuing licenses. Georgia also may change its laws to allow people to carry guns in churches, bars and on college campuses, contrary to what's happening elsewhere in the United States.

Judges in Georgia now have discretion over whether to grant a license to carry a weapon to anyone who has received inpatient treatment at a mental hospital or substance abuse treatment center in the last five years, whether it's voluntary or not.

"Simply being hospitalized doesn't make a person a criminal or a threat," said Rep. Rick Jasperse, R-Jasper, the bill sponsor, in a statement. The legislation now heads to the state Senate.

 

[Jewell]

Gun ownership seems to be dropping rapidly:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.htmlApparently those stories we've all read in recent weeks about gun sales going crazy were limited mostly to people who already own guns, and who had paranoid fears about new gun control laws.

But if the rate of legal gun ownership has dropped starkly over the past four decades (as the article notes) while gun violence has increased over that same span (as statistics reflect) wouldn't that show that gun violence was lower when legal gun ownership was more widespread?That article supports the arguments that many in this thread have made that this issue is not gun violence as a supposed natural offspring of gun ownership, but instead as a shift in the culture where gun violence is most prevalent.