What other countries do differently than the US to stop mass shootings

True.

 

I had. Thanks for the reminder.

 

We are doing the opposite in the large democrat cities.

 

Unlike some who post here, and even though we don't always see eye-to-eye on everything, you seem to me to be a studious, scholarly person. Thus, and even though we do interpret the Nazis' Waffengesetz 1938 differently, I would like to provide you a link to the original document, in German: https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Waffengesetz_(1938) . My intention is not to be a 'snot', but rather more as someone else who does try to 'dig a little deeper' into matters of importance... and I can't think of anything more important than an American citizen's right to defend himself from creatures like Salvador Ramos.

I'm a German-speaker, and I can assure you that this is a word-for-word, verbatim text of the original Nazi decree, and I offer it only as something you may enjoy poring through at some time. There are numerous translation sites you can use if you don't ordinarily read 'legalese'-German.

The other readily-available example of a totalitarian state forbidding 'general' firearms ownership to its people, North Korea, is one I don't have any real familiarity with... yet. So, then, all the best to you!

 

I don't speak German, but the Nazis DID re-regulate gun-control, but of course the de-regulation excluded Jews. Germans were disarmed by the Treaty Of Versailles, and the Nazis allowed citizens to acquire firearms, and then established youth programs (Hitler Jugend) to train the youth to handle firearms. Older citizens were drafted into the military and trained for WW2. Jews were stripped of their property, and were sent to the camp. The rest is history.

Trying to use Nazis as an argument against gun control in US fails, because it doesn't compare at any level. Also, the old NRA talking point "the first thing Nazis did was ban guns" is simply not true, because they did the opposite. WE (the allies) banned guns in Germany after WW-1.

 

If you want guidelines to gun control, Canada has just announced it's propositions. They sound civilised and seriously, in the interest of the country as a whole.

 

The Nazis made sure that those in 'supporter' organizations and other 'friendlies' were able to possess weapons, but they were denied to the general public, and Jewish people in particular, as you have noted. BTW, it is estimated by credible sources that even at the height of its popularity, no more than ~15% of the German population were card-carrying members of the Nazi Party. Hitler and his 'Brown Shirt SA-cadres' had conducted numerous street battles during the Nazis' formative years with the German Communists, and he didn't want anything like the chaos of the Weimar Republic period going on as he was assembling his 'Third Reich'....

 

You did not have to be a member of the Nazi party to own a gun. Either way, you seem to be avoiding the fact that it was the Treaty of Versailles which disarmed the citizens, Jews and non-Jews alike, and the Nazis de-regulated the gun laws 20 yrs later. Besides, even if Jews had guns, it would have made no difference since Jews accounted for about 0.75% of German population at the time.

 

That is absolutely NOT what the phrase well-regulated means, as used in the Constitution... as you've been told numerous times by me and others on this forum. That phrase had a very specific meaning to the people who wrote it, and it's nothing like what you are saying.

"The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only NOT the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm

 

Correct. The US military is well regulated aka "in good working order". The 2A calls for similar standards:

- No kids
- No criminals
- No junkies or habitual drunkards
- No crazies or habitually reckless people
- No people who are physically unfit to handle firearms
- No people who do not know how to safely handle firearms

 

The 2A says no such thing. It imposes a hard stop on government control with regards to arms. "Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.

 

I'm not avoiding anything. You are the one who is avoiding the fact that the chief purpose of the Treaty of Versailles regarding weapons was to deny them thereafter to the German Imperial Army and Navy, thus ensuring that hostilities would really be at an end. Provisions in it pertaining to the general German population weren't even enforced, by anyone!

Now, back to the Nazis... read the Waffengesetz 1938 beginning at Article §12 and you'll get a pretty clear view of who the Nazis would allow weapons possession, and under which provisions! You don't read German, but that's no obstacle... a fairly reliable translator can be brought up just by googling the word "translator" and using the pull-down to select languages.

It will be interesting to see if you are this contentious when we move on to the gun-rights 'example' of North Korea....

 

I am referring to the "well regulated", which you were talking about in the post I responsed to. It DOES call for well regulated aka "well functioning" militia. It does NOT call for a bunch of drunken crazies.

Tell me again what "well regulated" means? Did you change your opinion from your earlier post http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mass-shootings.600082/page-6#post-1073480707?

Heck, I am agreeing with your view of it meaning "in good working condition". But you jumped from that to pretending "well regulated" is not mentioned, and only "Shall not be infringed" is mentioned. What does "good working condition" mean to you, if not the things I mentioned?

 

AND civilians. It specifically spells it out, and I have quoted 2 times now, so I have to assume you avoid it in purpose.

Regulation after the 1919 Treaty of Versailles
The Treaty of Versailles included firearm reducing stipulations. Article 169 targeted the state: "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless." Article 177 further banned all civilian use of firearms, any civilian instruction on their use, and any civilian shooting exercises activity, especially banning all organizations or associations from taking part in any such use and/or activity or allowing it to happen.

In order to comply with the Versailles Treaty, in 1919 the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately." Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks

It was a de-regulation compared to what they had before (from Treaty Of Versailles). Period.

 

That is especially true given the unique status of the English word, "SHALL" in government laws and documents. When you see the word, "shall" in any government communication, whether in a law, or in even something so elemental as specifications in an official government solicitation's bid requirements, its meaning is incontestable, absolute, and not subject to further interpretation! That was true in the 18th-century English-speaking world, and it is just as true today.

 

People who think 2+2 =5 have the opinions I trust...
Not. What freedom we lost under Trump we lost because he trusted the bureaucracy far more than he should have. The same cannot be said for Biden

 

The provisions of the Treaty of Versailles were so unenforced and ineffectual that the Weimar Republic issued a whole new set of gun ownership laws in 1928 -- and remember, the Nazis did not take over until five years later, in 1933. I've been trying to talk about gun control under the Nazis (NAZIS), and you keep countering with the Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1919! The Nazi Party didn't even come into being until 1921!

Look, as I've pointed out several times, the Waffengesetz 1938 was the Nazi revision to gun control in Germany -- not the treaty that ended World War I nineteen years earlier! If you won't read a translation of the Waffengesetz 1938, I can't make you....

I support raising the minimum age to purchase and possess firearms to 21 (and possibly higher), and also creating a "Red Flag registry" of some kind (I never thought I'd say that before now....). I also strongly endorse the concept of making prison terms so long and so horrible for those convicted of crimes carried out with firearms that no one with any sense would commit them. Obviously then, the ones with no "sense" would need to be kept locked up in 'mental institutions' of one kind or another. Maybe, just maybe we can agree on THAT much...(?).

 

Yes, I am talking about Treaty of Versailles because (and this is the last time I repeat it), WE (allied) imposed super strict gun laws on Germans, and it included civilians. Weimar Republic enforced those laws and Nazis deregulated those laws aka made it EASIER for civilians to get guns. Did they remove all restrictions? No, of course not, but they relaxed the existing laws.

This conversation started with the old NRA talking point "the first thing Nazis did was ban guns". It is simply not true.

As I said earlier I support national carry license for those who pass criminal background checks and mental & physical evaluation for 1st time buyers.

 

Well... the facts, and, perhaps more importantly, the HISTORY are there for all to see. I am not trying to smother anyone in an NRA 'talking point'... I started out commenting that tyrannical, oppressive regimes like those in Nazi Germany and North Korea always heavily restrict gun ownership by the common, ordinary citizenry... and if I've ready your comments correctly, neither of us wants to see that happen here in the United States. Aside: Hitler was 'nice' to those he liked, and I'm sure Kim Jong-un is 'nice' to those that he likes, too....

Fortunately for us, then, our opponents who want to strip the Constitution of the Second Amendment have their work cut out for them! It will take a lot more energy and determination than we see among most in this anti-defense klatch to get rid of a foundational American citizen's right that "SHALL not be infringed". All the best!

 

OMG. It'll never sink in, will it......... Oh well, as I said, I won't keep repeating it. Its interesting though, that US helped impose ultra strict gun laws on Germans, while preaching the horrors of such laws in US.

 

But we do not for most of that history and do no not now all though the Biden admin is doing everything in their power to change that. And we do not almost entirely because the founders established a minimalist government.

 

But the left wants to define the term as applying to every US citizen., The exact opposite of what the amendment meant

 

What term? Militia = Every US Citizen. Well Regulated = In good working order, as discussed above.

Not sure what your argument is

 

One problem with that notion... Columbine two broke no less than 22 different gun laws. 2 their original plan was to chuck propane tanks into the furnace under the cafeteria during lunch hour.

The clear intent of the second is that you cannot have both s miltia and a disarmed citizenry. There for all citizens have a right if not a duty to be armed with the best available personal weapon they can afford