It is, but Canada is a nicer country. See what I did there! (Sorry, I'm English mate. I couldn't resist).
Which has so far done no good for removing unacceptable staff members. Those selected to replace them are just as bad, if not worse, and the bad actors always come back. Which leads to convictions, criminal records, and termination of constitutional rights. Worse than a corrupt government that maintains a monopoly on all force in the country, has no obligation to keep you safe from harm, and no obligation to provide you with any services? Your assumption pertaining to location is not based on actual fact.
Ha ha . The hitter regime had a less restrictive gun policy then the previous one. "The 1938 law signed by Hitler that 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." Notice Nazi party members, a fascist group, were exempt from regulation all together. This group engaged in minority persecution, not just Jews, but all minoities and limited their freedoms to participate politically. This is emulated in GOP controlled states which does the same with it's minorities by engaging in "jerrymandering " and restricting their voter participation. So, it's really a political issue here like it was in Germany. Anyone here that doesn't agree with conservative principals is labeled a gun banner and their qualifications and opinions are marginalized by insults and labeling.
Adolf Hitler exempted the nazis he led from firearm control laws that affected others who were later targeted for genocide. How is that less restrictive than the previous regime?
The entire populas had fewer restrictions then before. That is the point. Party members had no restrictions. This is similar in all fascist states. It is no different. But the fact remains, the Nazi party did not confiscate guns and allowed ownership beyound the previous government. Fascist prosecuted minorities and marginized their political involvement like GOP controlled state do here with Jerrymandering and inhibiting voting rights of minorities., That the Nazi party allowed party members fewer restriction does not alter the fact that Everyone else still had fewer restrictions. It's no different then what the GOP tries to do in GOP controlled states with voting rights.
Why were jews and gypsies not allowed to own firearms, and forced to surrender them and any other weapon they might have in their possession?
Your proposition is ludicrous. Jews were killed everywhere Germany invaded, totaling 2/3 of the European population, in countries other then Germany too where the Germans had no control over guns before they invade them. That Jews in Europe could have defended themselves against a military like the Germans had is rediculous. They couldn't in the countries that were invaded. The Germans slaughtered 5 million other minorities throughout Europe as well that they also had no gun law control. The reason Israel works today, is the consolidation of a population in one area and the support of The United States military and their own govt. ; these are endities you are afraid of. The fallacy of the gun nut conjecture lies in this simple fact. If it does any good to arm civilians, the Jews would be doing it today. They don't; they trust their military and have strict gun control laws. I repeat this. Jews of Israel have strict gun control laws and they should know. Many of their ancestors lived through the holocaust and they know better then LaPierre and you guys.
Btw. Just the idea they were forced to give up their weapons tells you having them in the first place will do no good vs a military and a population that will turn you in. The police and military of most any country could come and take your weapons any time they want and it doesn't matter how well armed you think you are. You don't have tanks and armored personell carriers. Just give up the notion. This is not Red Dawn . ��
Could the U.S. Military defeat its armed citizens? Yes. Would the government want the rest of the world to see it massacre its citizenry? Not a chance. The mass presence of firearms in the U.S. serves as a deterrent from such action.
There wouldn't be any massacre mate. They would just make a massive example of the first few people to refuse and then everyone would stop refusing. Think Waco. Sorry but your self defence against the state is illusory. It's not 1776 anymore. Did gun ownership prevent the American Civil war? Nope. Have the rebs preserved their freedom against an oppressive and illegitimate regime? Nope. Did the outside world rush to save them from massacre? Nope. I appreciate the romance of it and I appreciate the posteur and the swagger. The reality however is you will fold like an empty paper bag in the wind. The only people who won't fold easily are the criminal gangs. Those who already have the balls to take an armed stand against the laws of their country. But that's not how it will happen as we all well know. It will be death by a thousand cuts. And that's why American gun owners fight with such vigour over every tiny minor infraction of shooters rights. It's because they know what's going on. They aren't stupid. One will follow another will follow another and all of them will seem reasonable when considered in isolation. Let me tell you how it went when the police took away my AK47. They changed the law and my legal gun became an illegal gun. The Police came round and took it. They did not pry it out of my cold dead hands. I wasn't even there. My housemate handed it over and signed a release for it so I didn't even get compensated. If you get all arsey about how you are going to start a war to keep your guns, your wife and children will hand them over while you are asleep.
Mate, the military wouldn't even make an example of the first few, we're talking about people who have brothers, mothers, sisters, dads, etc. Sure some sheeple will hand their guns over but they will be the urban types, the rural citizens, not likely even the youngsters would just hand over their family guns and it's unlikely the local law enforcement would participate. This talk of the military or law enforcement officers coming to get our guns here in the USA is on shaky ground, depending on where you live naturally.
"If you get all arsey about how you are going to start a war to keep your guns, your wife and children will hand them over while you are asleep." The only one getting "Arsey" around here is YOU ! I am glad they took your guns, I hope they ban your remaining guns and start locking people up for dreaming about a Gun and muttering Gun culture stuff in your dreams..... good riddance !
True. But fortunately, most members of the military are not left wingers who would support Fed.com killing U.S. citizens. And make no mistake, if the U.S. government ever attacks its own citizens, it will be at the behest of a leftist administration tired of there being armed Americans who oppose them. So yeah, there might be an initial slaughter of armed, protesting Americans. But the enlisted guy from the south who considers himself a redneck won't be supporting his officers very long...
You can argue all you want about the effectiveness of the individual RKBA to prevent a modern day tyranny. What you must accept, however, is that tyrants universally believed arms control was essential to population control. See the following early example: “Winning the battle of Pallenis, he seized the government and disarmed the people; and now he held the tyranny firmly, and he took Naxos and appointed Lygdamis ruler. The way in which he disarmed the people was this: he held an armed muster at the Temple of Theseus, and began to hold an Assembly, but he lowered his voice a little, and when they said they could not hear him, he told them to come up to the forecourt of the Acropolis, in order that his voice might carry better; and while he used up time making a speech, the men told off for this purpose gathered up the arms, locked them up in the neighboring buildings of the Temple of Theseus, and came and informed Peisistratus.” Aristotle, Athenian Constitution. Nor was this belief and practice limited to Greek history. See another example: “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. And it has happened in my own country—done by men who chose to ignore the individual rights contained in our Constitution http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist8/intern1.html: ENEMY ALIEN CURFEW FRIDAY German, Japs, Italians In New Restrictions ________________________________________ All enemy aliens and Japanese-Americans in the western halves of California, Oregon and Washington and in the southern half of Arizona will be placed under rigid new curfew regulations Friday, and any violators will be “immediately punished.” Announced by Lieut. Gen. John L. DeWitt, commander of the Western Defense Command, the order is intended to facilitate enforcement of measures against sabotage and fifth column activity. It was contained in the third public proclamation by General DeWitt since the war started. Extends Arms Ban The proclamation also extended the ban on possession of firearms, war materials, short-wave radio receiving and transmitting sets and other contraband to Japanese-Americans. Enemy aliens already had been forbidden to have such articles. The new regulations superseded those ordered for certain areas last January by Atty. Gen. Francis Biddle. Curfew exemptions granted by United States attorneys were revoked, effective Friday. Under the new edict Japanese, German and Italian aliens and Japanese-Americans must remain at home between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. Persons affected may not travel more than five miles from their homes except to settle their affairs at wartime civilian control offices. Under a law approved by President Roosevelt last week violators face penalties of a $5000 fine or one year’s imprisonment or both. Will Be Enforced Warning that the curfew would be enforced “rigidly,” General DeWitt said: “Military necessity dictates such action and military necessity requires strictest enforcement. As a patriotic duty, each citizen is urged to report without delay to local authorities or the FBI any violation he may observe.” The proclamation was expected to speed evacuation of strategic areas. Reception centers for evacuees have been established at Manzanar, Cal., in Owens Valley, and near Blythe, Cal., in the Colorado River Valley. The War Relocation Authority announced plans yesterday to place 20,000 Japanese on the Colorado River Indian Reservation at Parker, Ariz. Governor E.P. Carville of Nevada echoed the reception given the Northwestern Japanese colony proposal when he announced yesterday: “If Japanese evacuees come into Nevada they will go into concentration camps.” When we think of oppression in America we often think of slavery—and it is an excellent example of how gun control was used to effectuate population control. The above example is just another way in which racist motivated population control was made easier by gun control. And though it is by no means ancient history, it was not even the last time gun control was used to effectuate a racist population control program. That distinction falls to America’s treatment of Native Americans, whose gun rights remained substantially impaired (done originally in the name of population control) until the prohibitions finally ended in 1979. Modern day gun control continues this trend of population control. The gun control proponent considers himself your superior. It may be your life, but he knows best how you should live it. He has looked upon your station and decided what rights you need—and which ones you do not need. He has decided that you are not responsible enough to be trusted with the fundamental RKBA. In fact, he is not even content to give you the choice of whether or not to claim the RKBA, for the freedom to choose would give you the power to reject his advice. Instead, he has assumed he possesses the moral authority to make that choice for you—and, if allowed—he will seek to force that choice upon you by making it a crime to choose otherwise. His wisdom, you see, is so sound that that he sees nothing wrong with forcing it upon you by criminalizing a failure to accept it. Do I believe the modern gun control proponent is racist? No, but the motivation is irrelevant. Abandoning the iron fist of racist anger for the velvet glove of benevolent paternalism does not change the essential goal of gun control—which remains population control. And listen, there are things where the government is entitled to be paternal with its laws. But our government remains a government of laws and not men. The Constitution sets forth specific restrictions on the power of government—restrictions that do not change merely because those who seek to avoid a constitutional restriction claim their assumption of this new power over us is motivated by a benign design. This is my main problem with most gun control supporters. The gun control proponent feels so strongly in the wisdom of his vision for us that the Constitution merely becomes an obstacle to overcome—as though the raw power to enforce his will upon us is caged by a document written by men long dead, and he is justified in using any means at his disposal to effectuate its escape from this prison. He has tried to blow up the prison entirely by a false re-interpretation of the 2nd. Amendment—an interpretation which has no historical foundation and which reads the Constitution to be in conflict with itself. But this is of little consequence for the gun control proponent, for there comes a time when the cause becomes so self-righteous that it transcends the normal boundaries of petty things like morality—where nothing becomes inconsistent so long as it is expedient—where the end is so desirable that any means will justify it. Now the argument I hear has become this: The government has become so vast, so powerful, that you cannot defend against it. Sure, sure, the Bill of Rights was enacted to place restrictions on the power of government. But the government should be allowed to throw off one of those restrictions. Why? Because it has become powerful enough to do so. It has created a situation in which it can claim the restriction is no longer necessary or viable—therefore cut the chains and free the power to allow me to tell you how you should live your life. After all, I only want what’s best for you, and I know you better than you know yourself. Dagosa, I don’t care about your claim that we cannot defend ourselves. Be honest with yourself—that’s not even your real argument. The real argument is the elimination of a right you do not believe I should have, and this latest spin on it is just another attempt to justify the power you want to claim to tell me how I must live my life. Forgive me if I once again disagree with your belief that you know best how to live my life. --- "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." Justice Brandeis, explaining why he could not condone the government's use of information in a criminal case that was obtained from the use of a wiretap which violated the Fourth Amendment, in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (192 (Dissenting opinion).
All this is true but once the majority of the population, the urbanites, have given there's up, you have lost. A generation of new military who don't agree with your right to have one will be born. You will be marginalised and regulated and you will fold. And if you do not your lives will be in mortal danger for the rest of their duration. You will place every one you loves lives in mortal danger just be being near them. You will fold. Just like the Nazi's folded, Just like the Japs folded. Just like the Rebs folded. Your government isn't that bad. Politics isn't worth dying for. But I think you have the right of it. I think every time anyone says anything even remotely gun controlly, you should be growling and roaring and threatening. So they know that enough of you do not want it. Otherwise the agenda will be controlled by murders and massacres and not people who enjoy shooting and who enjoy the feelings of personal security and empowerment that owning a gun brings.
Seems to be mindset vs environmental. Live in good area with people not paranoid kill you. Don't need gun. But if in slums then large gun good idea. Which are you?
Well, chap, we kicked your butt in 1776. We can do it again. Remember that. Hey man, some of us would rather die trying to escape/fight back. You can be the first one to get "re-educated"
Ha ha In the words of Ned Pepper in "True Grit" "That's brave talk from a one eyed fat man" No one as yet has fared very well when the govt. came to take their guns away. I can see you guys crying for your mama when the first armored vehicle rolled up in the front yard.
There is a long, difficult road for liberals/progressives/socialists to travel before they are rolling up to our front yards in armored vehicles. First, of course, is the constitution. As fast as the left want to bring in immigrants and make them voters (peasants from third world countries mostly come from cultures where they are forbidden to have guns, and as long as someone is providing them food and shelter they'll be content) they are still decades away from having a popular uprising for gun confiscation. There only recourse is a leftist Supreme Court that rules against the 2A somehow, but that is even remote at this point as even the most left wing wackjob judges in the lower courts still give a glancing nod to the constitution. Finally, most of the police/military the leftists would use for such operations are more conservative then their potential masters, and many would very likely rebel at such unconstitutional actions. But then again, that's why we in the U.S. are citizens and many Europeans and people in the UK are subjects...
All the butt kicking took place in your country mate. Not ours. No flames over Buckingham Palace, only Washington. You can kick our butts any time you like. But it will be the end of your civilisation on the very same day as you choose to do so. We can take all comers. Join the queue if you like. Or we can just sit back and watch you do it to yourself I suppose. I'm sorry but I think if you take your govt on over guns, you will get the Waco treatment. You won't escape for long if you escape at all. I appreciate the romance of it and all. I really do. But you'll fold in the wind or your wife will hand all your guns in. Or you'll just die. Achieve nothing more in your life than cause misery to everyone who ever loved you. A gun can give a man a false sense of confidence. Be careful when you hold one. Violence is not always the best means of defence.
My government does trust it's citisens with guns. I have many. I won't be using them on Muslims any time soon however. Not even Catholics. Murder isn't a political tool I feel any need for in my arsenal. Gun control is not to be confused with a total gun ban. It's not quite so polarised as that.
The federal government chose to back down during the standoff at the Bundy ranch when confronted by armed protestors, despite having superior numbers, firepower, and legal authority on their side.
