Thinking about a vacation in FL, eh?
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,228
Likes: 0
From: Miami
Originally Posted by JonBoy,Oct 6 2005, 11:32 AM
Of course, in the middle east, you get killed for committing such things. Murderers are beheaded. Thieves lose their thumbs (or their hand). It's a whole different ballgame.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,096
Likes: 0
From: SF Bay Area
Originally Posted by wdavis,Oct 6 2005, 09:06 PM
Speak for yourself.
The nazis felt the same way, and it worked well for them. Then again what followed were some of the most hideous crimes in human history.
The nazis felt the same way, and it worked well for them. Then again what followed were some of the most hideous crimes in human history.
But I don't quite understand what you're saying. Care to elaborate? I'm pretty sure the Nazis had guns, so obviously guns weren't taken away from everyone.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,096
Likes: 0
From: SF Bay Area
Originally Posted by wdavis,Oct 6 2005, 09:06 PM
Speak for yourself.
The nazis felt the same way, and it worked well for them. Then again what followed were some of the most hideous crimes in human history.
The nazis felt the same way, and it worked well for them. Then again what followed were some of the most hideous crimes in human history.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
From what I can gather in my 5 minutes of completely unscientific Internet "research," it appears that the goal of that law was to keep guns out of civilian hands and ensure that only the Nazis had firearms.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know anything about this and only got interested because of your reply.
If that's correct, then you should have quoted my entire paragraph rather than a snippet:
This is the crux of the matter for me. Gun control laws would be nice if they could take guns out of everyone's hands. But all they really do is leave the criminals armed and the average citizen unable to defend himself. There is and always will be a black market for guns, period.
Does that clarify my point?
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
From: Orlando
Originally Posted by cyber_x,Oct 6 2005, 01:36 PM
Ok, I got curious enough so I looked it up. I'm guessing you're referring to the Weapons Law of 1938:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
From what I can gather in my 5 minutes of completely unscientific Internet "research," it appears that the goal of that law was to keep guns out of civilian hands and ensure that only the Nazis had firearms.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know anything about this and only got interested because of your reply.
If that's correct, then you should have quoted my entire paragraph rather than a snippet:
My point is, in order for gun control to be effective, then you'd have to make sure nobody has them. That includes both civilians and criminals. Is that a utopian dream? It is in my book, which is why I don't believe gun control works. If taking guns away from the Jews left them defenseless against the Nazis (it seems that there's some debate over this but we'll make this assumption), then taking guns away from our citizens leaves them defenseless against criminals in the same manner.
Does that clarify my point?
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
From what I can gather in my 5 minutes of completely unscientific Internet "research," it appears that the goal of that law was to keep guns out of civilian hands and ensure that only the Nazis had firearms.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know anything about this and only got interested because of your reply.
If that's correct, then you should have quoted my entire paragraph rather than a snippet:
My point is, in order for gun control to be effective, then you'd have to make sure nobody has them. That includes both civilians and criminals. Is that a utopian dream? It is in my book, which is why I don't believe gun control works. If taking guns away from the Jews left them defenseless against the Nazis (it seems that there's some debate over this but we'll make this assumption), then taking guns away from our citizens leaves them defenseless against criminals in the same manner.
Does that clarify my point?
I'm afraid you are correct in that it would be a utopian dream at this point in history to ban all guns. Our "friends" in russia and china would certainly be happy to build firearms and all sorts of other dandy destructive devices that bad guys would abuse even if they were illegal....and they would certainly make it to the US as a destination.
It really is a shame though that most people consider guns as a tool of death and destruction. For me, guns are a hobby and I enjoy shooting in competitions on weekends. I dont even like to think about using a gun to shoot or kill anyone, or anything.
Until then, I find it difficult to fathom that some people in our government are so dead set on banning guns....even as they themselves are armed personally, or have government supplied armed security.
Regards,
WD
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,938
Likes: 0
From: limerick
Originally Posted by cyber_x,Oct 6 2005, 05:36 PM
Ok, I got curious enough so I looked it up. I'm guessing you're referring to the Weapons Law of 1938:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
From what I can gather in my 5 minutes of completely unscientific Internet "research," it appears that the goal of that law was to keep guns out of civilian hands and ensure that only the Nazis had firearms.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know anything about this and only got interested because of your reply.
If that's correct, then you should have quoted my entire paragraph rather than a snippet:
My point is, in order for gun control to be effective, then you'd have to make sure nobody has them. That includes both civilians and criminals. Is that a utopian dream? It is in my book, which is why I don't believe gun control works. If taking guns away from the Jews left them defenseless against the Nazis (it seems that there's some debate over this but we'll make this assumption), then taking guns away from our citizens leaves them defenseless against criminals in the same manner.
Does that clarify my point?
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
From what I can gather in my 5 minutes of completely unscientific Internet "research," it appears that the goal of that law was to keep guns out of civilian hands and ensure that only the Nazis had firearms.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know anything about this and only got interested because of your reply.
If that's correct, then you should have quoted my entire paragraph rather than a snippet:
My point is, in order for gun control to be effective, then you'd have to make sure nobody has them. That includes both civilians and criminals. Is that a utopian dream? It is in my book, which is why I don't believe gun control works. If taking guns away from the Jews left them defenseless against the Nazis (it seems that there's some debate over this but we'll make this assumption), then taking guns away from our citizens leaves them defenseless against criminals in the same manner.
Does that clarify my point?
Actually the gun law did exactly what it was cited to do, under hitler and the Weimar regime.
It kept the guns out of the hands of the Nazis and the Jews so when hitler obtained power the jews and other opposition forces had no way to mount a coup.
Hitler enforced it and strenghtened it to keep the jews and other opposition forces from rebelling against him, one reason why gun control is a bad idea. The power needs to be in the hands of the people, always.
THE NAZIS DIDN'T USE FORCE TO COME TO POWER!
Recruited by Hindenburg
In November 1932 elections the Nazis again failed to get a majority of seats in the Reichstag. Their share of the vote fell
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post