New gun legislation?

[bassist_25]

Strauss is underrated in popular society, IMO.

I found out about him through Godwin's Law way back when I used to have a usenet account..

usenet... anyone else remember that?

I remember a few years ago, I said something on here along the lines of "Eugenics is an interesting concept." The key word there is interesting. I didn't say it was ethical, a good idea, socially acceptable, scientifically valid, or that I SUPPORT eugenics. I just said it was interesting, because, ya know, I have a fuckin' degree in psychology and find things like that interesting. A lot of people find serial killers interesting too, but that doesn't mean that those people condone stalking people, raping them, and then slashing them to bits. Well, that chick from Underground TV flipped a lid and compared me to the Nazis. The fact is that Hitler and the Nazis are interesting from a psychological, sociological, political, and historical perspective. Just because you've read the Bible doesn't necessarily make you a Christian; just because you've read Mein Kampf doesn't make you a Nazi, racist, or someone who condones systematic genocide. It's possible to have an intellectual interest in a topic without being a proponent of what that topic entails.

And yes, I remember Usenet.

[hicksjd9]

Many of our forefathers were escaping government persecution. They really understood what it meant to fight corrupt government.

Some things are more complicated now, but many other things are much less complicated. Take, for instance, survival of the fittest. It used to be that if you were slow physically or mentally, nature took you out.

Now, slow people don't die by natural selection, and are able to spend their time posting on message boards.

[Banned]

Here's the Formula: Hatred + Government + Disarmed Civilians = Genocide
What makes the argument so powerful? Two factors. First, it makes common sense: unarmed defenseless people have no hope against armed
aggressors. Second, it states the historical truth: evil governments did wipe out 170,000,000 innocent non-military lives in the 20th Century alone.
See the film “Innocents Betrayed” for further chilling evidence, also available from the JPFO store.
When the gun prohibitionists quote a statistic about how many people are killed by firearms misuse, the discussion sometimes bogs down into
whose crime statistics to believe and how to count crimes vs. the defensive firearm uses.
In the 20th Century:
• Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.
• Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals.
How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power - and the people, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims
were unarmed.
Government Dates Targets Civilians
Killed
“Gun Control”
Laws Features of Over-all “Gun Control” scheme
Ottoman
Turkey 1915-1917
Armenians
(mostly
Christians)
1 - 1.5
Million
Art 166, Pen Code 1866
& 1911 Proclamation, 1915
• Permits required • Government list of owners
• Ban on possession
Soviet Union 1929-1945
Political
Opponents;
Farming
communities
20
Million
Resolutions,1918
Decree, July 12, 1920
Art. 59 &182, Pen. Code,
1926
• Licensing of owners
• Ban on possession
• Severe penalties
Nazi Germany
& Occupied
Europe
1933-1945
Political
Opponents;
Jews; Gypsies;
Critics;
“examples”
20
Million
Laws on Firearms & Ammun..
1928
Weapon Law, March 18,
1938
Reg’s against Jews, 1938
• Registration & Licensing
• Stricter handgun laws
• Ban on possession
China,
Nationalist 1927-1949
Political
Opponents;
Army conscripts;
others
10
million
Art. 205. Crim Code, 1914
Art, 186-87, Crim Code,
1935
• Government permit system
• Ban on private ownership
China, Red
1949-1952
1957-1960
1966-1976
Political
Opponents;
Rural populations;
Enemies of the
State
20 - 35
Million
Act of Feb, 20, 1951
Act of Oct 22, 1957
• Prison or death to “counter-revolutionary criminals”
And anyone resisting any government program
• Death penalty for supplying guns to such “criminals”
Guatemala 1960-1981
Mayans & other
Indians;
Political enemies
100,000 -
200,000
Decree 36, Nov 25 - Act
of 1932
Decree 386, 1947
Decree 283, 1964
• Register guns & owners • Licensing with high fees
• Prohibit carrying guns
• Bans on guns, sharp tools • Confiscation powers
Uganda 1971-1979 Christians
Political enemies 300,000 Firearms Ordinance, 1955
Firearms Act, 1970
• Register all guns & owners • Licenses for transactions
• Warrant less searches • Confiscation powers
Cambodia
(Khmer
Rouge)
1975-1979
Educated
Persons;
Political enemies
2 Million
Art. 322-328, Penal Code
Royal Ordinance 55,
1938
• Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions
• Photo ID with fingerprints
• License inspected quarterly
Rwanda 1994 Tutsi People 800,000 Decree-Law No. 12,
1979
• Register guns, owners, ammunition
• Owners must justify need • Concealable guns illegal
• Confiscation powers
This is derived from the JPFO website page - as a more printer-friendly option. The complete web page is accompanied by a detailed
promotion of the Death by “Gun Control” book, written by Aaron Zelman and Richard W.Stevens - and available from the JPFO store . It works
on a level that nobody can dispute: documented world history.
Here's the Formula: Hatred + Government + Disarmed Civilians = Genocide
What makes the argument so powerful? Two factors. First, it makes common sense: unarmed defenseless people have no hope against armed
aggressors. Second, it states the historical truth: evil governments did wipe out 170,000,000 innocent non-military lives in the 20th Century alone.
See the film “Innocents Betrayed” for further chilling evidence, also available from the JPFO store.
When the gun prohibitionists quote a statistic about how many people are killed by firearms misuse, the discussion sometimes bogs down into
whose crime statistics to believe and how to count crimes vs. the defensive firearm uses.
In the 20th Century:
• Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.
• Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals.
How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power - and the people, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims
were unarmed.
Government Dates Targets Civilians
Killed
“Gun Control”
Laws Features of Over-all “Gun Control” scheme
Ottoman
Turkey 1915-1917
Armenians
(mostly
Christians)
1 - 1.5
Million
Art 166, Pen Code 1866
& 1911 Proclamation, 1915
• Permits required • Government list of owners
• Ban on possession
Soviet Union 1929-1945
Political
Opponents;
Farming
communities
20
Million
Resolutions,1918
Decree, July 12, 1920
Art. 59 &182, Pen. Code,
1926
• Licensing of owners
• Ban on possession
• Severe penalties
Nazi Germany
& Occupied
Europe
1933-1945
Political
Opponents;
Jews; Gypsies;
Critics;
“examples”
20
Million
Laws on Firearms & Ammun..
1928
Weapon Law, March 18,
1938
Reg’s against Jews, 1938
• Registration & Licensing
• Stricter handgun laws
• Ban on possession
China,
Nationalist 1927-1949
Political
Opponents;
Army conscripts;
others
10
million
Art. 205. Crim Code, 1914
Art, 186-87, Crim Code,
1935
• Government permit system
• Ban on private ownership
China, Red
1949-1952
1957-1960
1966-1976
Political
Opponents;
Rural populations;
Enemies of the
State
20 - 35
Million
Act of Feb, 20, 1951
Act of Oct 22, 1957
• Prison or death to “counter-revolutionary criminals”
And anyone resisting any government program
• Death penalty for supplying guns to such “criminals”
Guatemala 1960-1981
Mayans & other
Indians;
Political enemies
100,000 -
200,000
Decree 36, Nov 25 - Act
of 1932
Decree 386, 1947
Decree 283, 1964
• Register guns & owners • Licensing with high fees
• Prohibit carrying guns
• Bans on guns, sharp tools • Confiscation powers
Uganda 1971-1979 Christians
Political enemies 300,000 Firearms Ordinance, 1955
Firearms Act, 1970
• Register all guns & owners • Licenses for transactions
• Warrant less searches • Confiscation powers
Cambodia
(Khmer
Rouge)
1975-1979
Educated
Persons;
Political enemies
2 Million
Art. 322-328, Penal Code
Royal Ordinance 55,
1938
• Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions
• Photo ID with fingerprints
• License inspected quarterly
Rwanda 1994 Tutsi People 800,000 Decree-Law No. 12,
1979
• Register guns, owners, ammunition
• Owners must justify need • Concealable guns illegal
• Confiscation powers

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=President+of+J ... pfo.org%2F

[Banned]

Um.. there are only so many ways you can control guns... So yeah, sometimes you might run into similar practices.

Please cite your sources. Cause I'm raising the BS flag.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat ... sp?ID=3390

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/hci_nazi.html

http://usa-the-republic.com/jurispruden ... rms_1.html

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm

[JackANSI]

I still don't see the paragraphs of nazi laws and the brady bill that are identical..

Can you point them out to me?


And I still don't see the US government going in that direction. Maybe I'm just blind. Why not fire up the revolution machine while you still have guns? If its so obvious a plot to take the US down the Nazi road, a majority of people out there won't think you're a crackpot and follow you then you can "have it your way"!

[JackANSI]

The following makes no sense:

Here's the Formula: Hatred + Government + Disarmed Civilians = Genocide
What makes the argument so powerful? Two factors. First, it makes common sense: unarmed defenseless people have no hope against armed
aggressors. ....snip

[Banned]

http://www.saveourguns.com/LethalLaws.htm

[JackANSI]

http://www.saveourguns.com/LethalLaws.htm

I'm lazy today, just quote the identical paragraphs...


Edit:

I see everyone jump on the table and hold the constitution on high, but its never the enitre document instead only the parts that you like. Thats not how it works. (Read the 16th if you want to hold the constitution up)

If the majority of people don't want gun control, then you have nothing to worry about. If the majority wants it, then who are you to take that right away from the majority?

[Banned]

http://www.saveourguns.com/LethalLaws.htm

I'm lazy today, just quote the identical paragraphs...

You said you could not make sense of the post. It did not copy over well to this page, so I gave you the a link with the chart, so now it will make sense to you. If it is too difficult for you to click on the link to see the chart, maybe you are the lazy one.

[JackANSI]

I did click, read Germany, but found no identical Nazi->Brady paragraphs.

[bassist_25]

Saveourguns.com?

Firearmsandliberty.com?

Definitely no bias there. I love how the sources selectively pick which secondary sources to cite to support their points. My thesis chair would laugh me out of his office if I came in with this and tried to pass it off as objective research.

[lonewolf]

What if you buy a semi before the bill passes, if it does?

Keep in mind, this legislation also covers any pistol, including low-caliber revolvers and single/double/quad load derringers. To answer your question:

You must apply for a federal license within two years after the bill becomes law. If you don't apply, the penalty is fines and/or up to 2 years in a federal prison.

I don't see any remedy for the disposal of the "qualifying weapon(s)" in the event that a person's license is revoked, or if a present gun owner applies for a license and is rejected.

What do you expect? The authors are just 21st century moron politicians whose vocation is to create more problems so they can get re-elected on the premise that they will solve them. Wouldn't it be nice if they could actually solve a problem without creating 10 more?

Tiny little minds with big, big ambitions.

[hicksjd9]

I can make any statistic say anything I want it to. I could go to the anti gun sites and make a great case for gun liberties with their own stats and vice versa. So can lots of other people.

Look. I don't like government regulating everything. I don't like them regulating things that I don't feel are a major problem. When government steps in, things go to shit.

I feel that way about this, and just about everything else that involves the rights on individuals i.e. personal freedoms.

When it comes to businesses, etc. I don't care so much. Regulate away.

[slackin@dabass]

wow. well... i am all for people owning guns... and i guess the government needs to regulate it so completely incompetent morons don't get any.


i already see the gap in this legislation... gibson980 already has guns registered in his name...

[gibson980]

wow. well... i am all for people owning guns... and i guess the government needs to regulate it so completely incompetent morons don't get any.


i already see the gap in this legislation... gibson980 already has guns registered in his name...

Watch out I'll McNair your ass, minus killing myself!

[Banned]

Saveourguns.com?

Firearmsandliberty.com?

Definitely no bias there. I love how the sources selectively pick which secondary sources to cite to support their points. My thesis chair would laugh me out of his office if I came in with this and tried to pass it off as objective research.

Paul, do you actually think that the New York Times would print articles favorable to gun ownership? Liberal sources (the VAST majority of media) will not run positive articles about Constitutional rights. There are lots of stories where people save lives with their personal guns. Those stories never appear on the evening news, do they? Why, cause liberal media people want to neuter the Second Amendment.

You tell me, where would you go to find objective sources in the mind of a liberal college professor that would be positive about the Second Amendment. Articles that would show that the gun grabber crowd patterns their laws after the socialists in the 1930s in Germany. You will not find it. Those articles are only going to be found in conservative media places.

[VENTGtr]

Paul, do you actually think that the New York Times would print articles favorable to gun ownership? Liberal sources (the VAST majority of media) will not run positive articles about Constitutional rights. There are lots of stories where people save lives with their personal guns. Those stories never appear on the evening news, do they? Why, cause liberal media people want to neuter the Second Amendment.

You tell me, where would you go to find objective sources in the mind of a liberal college professor that would be positive about the Second Amendment. Articles that would show that the gun grabber crowd patterns their laws after the socialists in the 1930s in Germany. You will not find it. Those articles are only going to be found in conservative media places.

Good freakin' grief. It's completely clear. YOU should not own a gun.

[JackANSI]

Whole paragraphs of the Brady Gun bill were taken word for word from the Nazi gun control laws of the 1930's. They did not even try to change the words. When the Nazis had the addresses of all the Jews who had registered their guns, they knew exactly where to go and take them away. Then millions of Jews were murdered because they were left defenseless.

You don't want to hear about the Nazis and Hitler, but your friends the liberal gun grabbers use that model, and their proposed laws are exactly like the Nazi laws.

It is hard to face the reality, isn't it?





Oh, and you are probably one of the idiots who try to deny that the Nazis were actually socialists.

I'm just asking for the quotes. You overextended the truth just like the people you get your ideas from have.

like I said there are only so many ways to run a gun control program. That doesn't mean the US government is going to go all genocidal on us.

If the law passes, the majority wanted it. You are the enemy if you don't believe in democracy. As was said in the hallowed halls of rockpage, if you don't like it, move to another country.

[RobTheDrummer]

What's the problem with guns in the first place? That's what I wanna know.

[songsmith]

i was wondering how long it would take....

Reductio ad hitlerum

European Jews, like all Europeans, weren't as gun-crazy as we are here. People in other civilized parts of the world don't hoard weapons, unless they're criminals.

In other news, the liberals are outlawing Christmas. --->JMS

[bassist_25]

Saveourguns.com?

Firearmsandliberty.com?

Definitely no bias there. I love how the sources selectively pick which secondary sources to cite to support their points. My thesis chair would laugh me out of his office if I came in with this and tried to pass it off as objective research.

Paul, do you actually think that the New York Times would print articles favorable to gun ownership? Liberal sources (the VAST majority of media) will not run positive articles about Constitutional rights. There are lots of stories where people save lives with their personal guns. Those stories never appear on the evening news, do they? Why, cause liberal media people want to neuter the Second Amendment.

You tell me, where would you go to find objective sources in the mind of a liberal college professor that would be positive about the Second Amendment. Articles that would show that the gun grabber crowd patterns their laws after the socialists in the 1930s in Germany. You will not find it. Those articles are only going to be found in conservative media places.

So if it's a liberal source, it's biased, but if it's a conservative source, it's objective. Okay, gotcha.

[RobTheDrummer]

i was wondering how long it would take....

Reductio ad hitlerum

European Jews, like all Europeans, weren't as gun-crazy as we are here. People in other civilized parts of the world don't hoard weapons, unless they're criminals.

In other news, the liberals are outlawing Christmas. --->JMS

You never know what crazy liberals in power will do...

[Banned]

Saveourguns.com?

Firearmsandliberty.com?

Definitely no bias there. I love how the sources selectively pick which secondary sources to cite to support their points. My thesis chair would laugh me out of his office if I came in with this and tried to pass it off as objective research.

Paul, do you actually think that the New York Times would print articles favorable to gun ownership? Liberal sources (the VAST majority of media) will not run positive articles about Constitutional rights. There are lots of stories where people save lives with their personal guns. Those stories never appear on the evening news, do they? Why, cause liberal media people want to neuter the Second Amendment.

You tell me, where would you go to find objective sources in the mind of a liberal college professor that would be positive about the Second Amendment. Articles that would show that the gun grabber crowd patterns their laws after the socialists in the 1930s in Germany. You will not find it. Those articles are only going to be found in conservative media places.

So if it's a liberal source, it's biased, but if it's a conservative source, it's objective. Okay, gotcha.

Instead of making simple smart ass answers, how about taking my question seriously, where is the "objective" source that liberals wouldn't roll their eyes at? You will not find topics like this in liberal journals, period. So how would you find the source if you disdain conservative sources so much?

[lonewolf]

Wiki? The Straight Dope? Maybe not the best sources, but these both confirm the actual legislative history in Germany.

Hitler did not enact the gun control law that he used to put Germany under his iron fist. In fact, he used the very law that was meant to curb the gang wars between the communists and nazis in 1928. It was not until 1938 that he passed gun legislation that pretty much banned guns from everybody but the nazi party. With those restrictions in place, he turned his sights outward to eastern Europe.

Kristallnacht and the most extreme treatment of the Jews occurred after the 1938 ban.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... -ownership

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

If I find the actual text of these laws, I will try to compare them, but I have to go spray another clearcoat on the rat.

[hicksjd9]

Didn't you get the memo, Songsmith? Liberals don't have Christmas any more. They celebrate happy holidays. God forbid we use the "C" word! Oh, wait! I said "God," I hope I didn't offend any rockpage atheists!

To Paul: Both sources are biased. The NRA has its equivalent in Michael Moore. Fox news has its CNN, etc. Fox news is just more open about their leanings. CNN is in a transparent denial of their loosly veiled liberal bias.

Liberals bitch about Fox news but the truth is, they are just mad because it finally evened the playing field.

Bias is not just in the information you present, it is in HOW and WHAT you CHOOSE to present. I can highlight the good things about guns and you can highlight the bad. Michael Moore is a master of this and makes his "documentaries" on this principle. People tend to think that documentaries are an objective source and often don't question them or use their critical thinking skills to evaluate them. Look, guns are a tool. They are a tool for killing but they are also called the great equalizer because they allow the weak to be strong and therefore defend themselves.

Go check out the movie Men with Guns. It's by a south american director. You'll have to read the subtitles, but it highlights the fact that those who have the guns, have the power. In the world environment, those without are powerless. Just because it is good NOW, doesn't mean it will be good for our children or grandchildren. I would rather leave their options open just in case.

The movie takes no part in the gun debate. It's a powerful story that illuminates the reality for many in the world today.