21 total posts
Huh, I wonder when they will
also start regulating the First Amendment too?
Even Wayne LaPierre......
.....supported background checks back in '99. I don't know what made him go to the deep end of the extremist pool. We shouldn't have them because criminals will find a way around them? By that logic we should just abolish all laws and declare anarchy.
And when we don't enforce laws vigorously
and give marshmallow powered wrist slaps instead, we create de facto anarchy. We're up to our ears in laws that no few obey. You can witness the disrespect for law every day. In fact, you can't miss it.
Remember Hitler and his thinking?
Confiscate the guns and you control the people.
Law-abiding gun owners required to register every firearm they own.......huge 300M gun database all given to a Federal government who wants to eventually eliminate those guns completely anyhow.....now they know where you live, what guns you own, and how many and the knock one day comes on your door. Now the only ones WITH the guns are the criminals who didn't obey the law and register THEIRS and law enforcement and special 'body guards' for movie stars because you just KNOW that there will be a ton of waivers given out. And all gun dealers have to register their inventory so those guns can be tracked as well.....and law enforcement and private investigators........and every gun confiscated in a criminal act.
The camel's nose is creeping into the tent...........
That Hitler business isn't true, Toni
LaPierre himself has made that reference and it's a lie.
Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone's guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn't make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.
University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler's, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.
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.
but not entirely.......
There was a large coalition of Partisans who not only hid their weapons because they were being confiscated, but also collected good and damaged weapons from battles and repaired them in order to keep fighting. Because Hitler had managed to convince so many of his own people that they were the superior race, he exempted 'true' Germans from those laws because he needed them to fight against the 'inferiors' and wipe them out. Your last paragraph doesn't mention that,
I did a search for Partisans against Hitler and found many hits that mentioned various factions, including Jews, so didn't post those links because there were so many of them to pick from.
OK, so it's "mostly" bogus
Is that sufficient for you to stop making the claim?
because although he didn't confiscate the guns from his own countrymen who were 'true' Germans, he DID confiscate the guns from the OCCUPIED countries......and THOSE were the Partisans who hid the guns and repaired the rest in order to fight back.
well taking arms away from conquered
is historically normal.
The Confederacy was certainly unarmed after it was conquered.
After various wars, the victors disarmed the defeated nation to various degrees. Germany and Japan both were severely restricted in armnament for decades.
No invader and occupier would leave weapons uncontrolled to the defeated enemy.
confisticating guns from occupied lands doesn't raise an eyebrow anywhere. It's when you disarm specific groups within your own country/nation/community the debate begins is it for good reasons or to make sure your opposition can't move against you when you stage a coup or manipulate the rules to become a tyrant.
"The Confederacy was certainly unarmed after it was conquered."
You sure about that?
The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was one of the polarizing decisions that led to the civil war. One minor issue was whether blacks had the citizenship right to bear arms. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) the Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote for the majority: "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union ... the full liberty ... to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
The debate in the Congress on the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War also concentrated on what the Southern States were doing to harm the newly freed slaves. One particular concern was the disarming of former slaves.
The Second Amendment attracted serious judicial attention with the Reconstruction era case of United States v. Cruikshank which ruled that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not cause the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, to limit the powers of the State governments, stating that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
There were some guns gathered at the surrender, but far as I recall all the other southern armies took both their horse and guns back home with them. As you can see the right to keep and bear arms was still a protected right following the war, even more than it probably is now.
ok, the former government and leaders
tho I do recall that Lee got Grant to let his men take their guns home because they had to hunt to provide food.
Ok, bad point, bad example, but Germany and Japan were restricted as to the size and deployment of their national forces after WW2 were they not?
Surely you don't deny it's a general practice to disarm a conquered people? at least temporarily anyway, except for the ones that can convince the conquerors they're willing to support the occupiers for their own benefit.
Yes, typical practice
My idea is if you really want to insure a long lasting defeat, bomb them back to the stone age and then make sure every family, no matter what the political faction, has an easily concealed handgun and at least 100 rounds of ammo, then leave, let them work it out among themselves.
advocating genocide to protect yourself?
I don't live there
Advocating all people have the ability to defend themselves.
not the first time you've suggested arming
several groups with all they need to eliminate each other and leave them to it.
Also not the first time you've recommended bombing someone back to the stone age.
It leads to an appearance the recommended solution is to help them wipe each other out.
Eventually I suppose the hope is "your kind" will be all that is left, or that is left in large enogh numbers to count.
Mutually Assured Destruction. Worked for the world in general. Probably lead to them seeking peace among neighbors and establish boundaries and rules that benefit all. The alternative is MAD.
I don't think the second amendment would affect
state rights to regulate it.
After all, the first ten amendments were to prevent the new federal government from taking those rights away from the states to control, a bribe to get the state representatives to sign, not the individual guys back home
Application of those amendments to state law has happen through judicial review, interpretation, expansion and limiting of the effect of amendments and laws.
I saw at least one state that forbade gun registration
as being a requirement. I didn't read them all but I could see a national policy being at odds with what a few states already have written into their own laws.
If there is a national law, unless it is ruled
unconstitutional it trumps state law.
Established over and over again, federal law trumps state unless you can get it declared unconstitutional in totality, partially in some areas, or set aside by court order in specific cases or instances.
Plenty of lawsuits filed I'm sure if stricter and broader federal laws do come out.
court has expanded second amendment to states
McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 tied the second amendment and th 14th amendment together by the Supreme Court to apply to states. The term local governments is also mentioned so it may extend to cities/towns also.