Tell me there's nothing wrong with America

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

So you believe the common German citizen would have started hunting down and shooting armed Jews because its what their government's army was doing?

Just because you vote for the guy doesnt mean you support everything they do, much less take it on yourself to go out and start murdering innocent civilians.

Again, you have a real knack for putting words in people's mouth. "If you believe A, then you must believe B...". Sorry, but it doesn't always work that way.

The common German citizens may not have actively hunted down Jews if they were armed, but it is also very unlikely that they would have aided a rebellion against the Nazis. The anti-Semetism was pretty strong in the general population and IF there was an armed rebellion of Jews, I cant imagine that it would have helped that much. If anything, the common Germans would have hated to see a Jewish armed uprising.

If you truly believed that, then given the state of the world at that time, your line of thinking as a common denominator among the worlds populace would mean we would all be Nazis right now. Such a defeatist attitude is honestly sad to hear.

What? Seriously, where the hell did that come from? Does this make sense to anyone else reading this?

The Nazis were defeated by soldiers with guns... not civilians. Just like pretty much every war in history.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Azure

Case in point.

Exhibit A. Canadian Citizen who does not know what the hell they're talking about when it comes to gun laws.

Handguns aren't 'banned'.....if you have a restricted license, and you're a member of a proper gun range, you can buy all the handguns you want. There are laws for carrying, transportation, storage, etc, etc....but by no means are they banned.

Thanks for proving my point though.

Those that are so passionately argue about gun laws don't even understand the laws in their own country. How sad is that?

"Effectively, there is already a ban on handguns in Canada. They are already extremely tightly controlled and are only available to those requiring them for employment purposes (such as police and armoured car guards), legitimate target shooters, and approved collectors," said a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/239072
I guess the Minister for Public works does not know the gun laws either, how sad.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Did I say that they should have just rolled over and died? No... but that is still what would have happened in all likelihood.

How so?
I just do not understand why you believe defenseless civilians had no less/no more of a chance against the SS crew than if they had firearms.

Originally Posted by FlamessAddiction

If they were facing an armed uprising, do you really think the SS would have just gone door-to-door without tanks and larger weapons? You can't change one variable without realizing that others that would change as result. If the Jews were armed, they just would gotten more extreme.

Im guessing this is a typo and you mean "they wouldn't have?"

And no, I dont think that would have been the case since the gun registry in WW2 Germany was implemented so this never had to happen.
In this case the variable of gun control was never an issue. The plan of the genocide was contingent on the gun control laws.

And no, I dont think the Germans would have gone door to door with tanks. Those tanks were too busy with the war outside of Germany. And the SS crew wasnt privy to such luxuries as "bigger guns" since all they needed was a luger and a thumbing gesture towards the back of a truck. That is if you were lucky enough to not get shot on spot.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Probably the same reason the U.S. has innitiated gun control in Iraq. Guns in civilian populations don't always make for peaceful situations. It's a tactical decision... do you diagree with gun control in Iraq? I'm guessing it's not the concept of gun control that bothers you, but where and when?

To a degree, yes where and when bothers me. However gun control implemented by U.S. gov't in a nation ran over has little to do with WW2 Germany, which is where gun control originated.

The underlying motive behind the invention of gun control is what bothers me.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Im pretty sure Europe at that time was more concerned with keeping their butt in the corner than rounding up global support for the extermination that was happening in Germany. The Jews, regardless of whether or not they were armed, wouldnt have lost one iota of victim status as their entire race was targeted based on nothing more than blind discrimination and hate. How would fighting back make them any less of a victim?

Sure they would have. It would have been viewed more as a civil war. Look at Israel as an example. Palestinians received far more international sympathy when they are attacked as civilians. As soon as they were given guns, they become soldiers and are fair game. It hasn't helped the peace process much.

How does this have anything to do with the validity of being able to fight certain death giventhe chance to do so with a firearm? Do you think the Jews facing the gas chamber/group furnace cared about their popularity in Europe?

What does this have to do with the argument of whether or not they stood a chance against the Nazis? From a romantic point of view, sure, it would have been cool if they went out in a blaze of glory I guess... but I hardly think history would be dramatically altered.

Give me one example of gov't led, systematic genocide against a different, specific race where said gov't had no gun control laws. Noone is trying to revise history, people are pointing out that the universally recognized man of upmost evil in human history pioneered gun control.

Kurds in Iraq were fairly well armed. They had a pretty big arsenal of weapons courtesy of the Iranians... Saddam Hussein's answer to that was poison gas attacks (with logistic support from allies). Kurds still lost despite being a heavily armed faction within Iraq.

(Last post on the matter because I have a lousy hotel internet connection and I keep losing my posts - so agree to disagree)

[bcb]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Sure they would have. It would have been viewed more as a civil war. Look at Israel as an example. Palestinians received far more international sympathy when they are attacked as civilians. As soon as they were given guns, they become soldiers and are fair game. It hasn't helped the peace process much.

Really? Seems more like anytime there is violence in the region, it is blamed on the "Israeli Occupation".

Israel is held to a higher standard than any other country throughout history, IMO.

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

To a degree, yes where and when bothers me. However gun control implemented by U.S. gov't in a nation ran over has little to do with WW2 Germany, which is where gun control originated.

And in turn gun control in pre-holocaust Germany has absolutely no relevance in a discussion of today's America. Giving people killing machines will cause much more problems than solutions in this day and age. Even a hardcore gun enthusiast would agree that guns are not going to solve any problems.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

And in turn gun control in pre-holocaust Germany has absolutely no relevance in a discussion of today's America. Giving people killing machines will cause much more problems than solutions in this day and age. Even a hardcore gun enthusiast would agree that guns are not going to solve any problems.

It's not about solving a problem in the present time. it's simply recreation. The problem is using inflated and exaggerated terms, such as "killing machines" to refer to what is primarily a hobby.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

What? Seriously, where the hell did that come from? Does this make sense to anyone else reading this?

The Nazis were defeated by soldiers with guns... not civilians. Just like pretty much every war in history.

You have repeated over and over that a unarmed Jew in WW2 Germany stood as much or as little of a chance as one who could have been armed.

Defeatist.

If Im facing certain death by means of furnace, gas chamber, sex change experiments, organ harvesting... then I would prefer to go down shooting than be part of some heinous final solution.

Nazis were defeated by the ideal that man is free. The people who fought against them were at some point, a civilian, and in some cases (ie Soviet Russia) were civilians.

Anyways, agree to disagree I guess. Its way past my nap time and its been ten minutes since I last checked outside for Himmler's boys.

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by bcb

It's not about solving a problem in the present time. it's simply recreation. The problem is using inflated and exaggerated terms, such as "killing machines" to refer to what is primarily a hobby.

Are you honestly trying to claim that a gun is not a machine designed to kill? Awesome. Can't wait to see the logic behind this one!

[bcb]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Are you honestly trying to claim that a gun is not a machine designed to kill? Awesome.

We both know a gun is designed to kill. A "firearm" is not typically referred to as a "killing machine" except by people who want to ratchet up gun control.

[ResAlien]

Damn, I missed the Godwin's Law part of the thread.

Either way, it's a pointless argument. There are many guns laws in the States here that let you carry. Hell, if you're registered in CO you can carry a loaded weapon as long as it's visible. You don't have to take classes to get a concealed weapons permit, but it's a good idea. My father just did.

Let it be said, I was not raised around them and guns scare the shinguard out of me. I've see too many Final Destination movies, but even after I've checked a gun 15 times and know it's not loaded in any way, if the barrel even grazes me I freak.

But guns are a way of life here. I have several close friends who all have concealed licenses due to their jobs and it's not an issue. We've gone out, gotten schnockered and no one is pulling heat. I don't buy that argument.

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by bcb

We both know a gun is designed to kill. A "firearm" is not typically referred to as a "killing machine" except by people who want to ratchet up gun control.

Next time just skip the foreplay and say that you agree with me.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Next time just skip the foreplay and say that you agree with me.

Several posts ago, you said:

Giving people killing machines will cause much more problems than solutions in this day and age.

I DISAGREE with your assertion.

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by bcb

I DISAGREE with your assertion.

Why?

[RougeUnderoos]

Maybe this has been covered, but it seems just plain weird to me that these people would choose to exercise their rights to strut around with guns at an event that doesn't have anything to do with gun control.

Obama was in there talking to veterans about I don't know what, but it wasn't about gun control. If it was about gun control then it would make some sort of sense if protesters outside decided to bring their guns as a symbolic protest.

The message I get from the guy with the gun is "I don't like the President and I have a machine gun. Think of that what you will".

Now sure, this guy has a right to carry that machine gun, but it seems like an inappropriate accessory, given the setting.

And I get all the bla bla bla about the guy's rights and all that stuff but there is a line that shouldn't have to be drawn.

It's perfectly legal for me to carry a hockey stick wherever I want to go but if I take that hockey stick into the parent/teacher interview and listen to some law-school dropout bitch of a teacher tell me that my son is "disruptive" and "needs more support at home", she would feel threatened by me and and call the cops again.

What's wrong with a hockey stick? Nothing. It's legal. It's in the Declaration of Constitution, but it can still, apparently, be dangerous.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Why?

Forgive me, but I must trot out that old line:

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

For law abiding citizens, guns are simply recreation, a hobby. A gun, like many grown-up toys can only be a killing machine if it's improperly used.

In the present time, for civilians, guns aren't thought of as problems or solutions.

[ResAlien]

Well, to be fair, guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Maybe this has been covered, but it seems just plain weird to me that these people would choose to exercise their rights to strut around with guns at an event that doesn't have anything to do with gun control.

Obama was in there talking to veterans about I don't know what, but it wasn't about gun control. If it was about gun control then it would make some sort of sense if protesters outside decided to bring their guns as a symbolic protest.

The message I get from the guy with the gun is "I don't like the President and I have a machine gun. Think of that what you will".

Now sure, this guy has a right to carry that machine gun, but it seems like an inappropriate accessory, given the setting.

And I get all the bla bla bla about the guy's rights and all that stuff but there is a line that shouldn't have to be drawn.

It's perfectly legal for me to carry a hockey stick wherever I want to go but if I take that hockey stick into the parent/teacher interview and listen to some law-school dropout bitch of a teacher tell me that my son is "disruptive" and "needs more support at home", she would feel threatened by me and and call the cops again.

What's wrong with a hockey stick? Nothing. It's legal. It's in the Declaration of Constitution, but it can still, apparently, be dangerous.

Early in the thread it was suggested that this fellow may have been making a statement about the Arizona law. An attempt to show how ridiculous this stuff can be and still be legal. I think that's more plausible than your assumption, esepcially given the picture I saw.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

You have to be delusional to think that guns are designed to shoot targets.

If you love shooting targets so much, buy a paintball gun. The colours of the paint also looks cool!

I guess i am delusional then...what the hell else are they for?

Even if your target is another person...its still a target. That's why they are built, to hit what you are aiming for.

I have no guns, i dont particularly like guns, i dont want guns. Most of my American friends however, own and use guns... for target shooting. Sometimes that target is an animal, most often its a piece of paper in a shooting range. Never has it been another human with the exception of those that were in Vietnam or Iraq. Do they pose a threat to me? Not a bit.

Now those that have their guns illegally (IE..you know, criminals) do pose a threat to me and everyone else because of their intentions. Those intentions do not exist with 99% of the population however. I would hope that in the case of a problem where a bad guy has a gun and is using it in a malicious way, that a good guy with no ill intentions woudl have a gun to help stop that situation. Something inherently impossible if the good guys have their guns taken away.

So what so many propose here is that because there are really bad guys with really bad intentions, EVERYONE should have their property taken away from them in an effort to make things safer for everyone else. Its such a false and simplistic solution. The bad guys are not going to get rid of/register their weapons...whether they be assault rifles or Saturday night specials.


Bad people shoot others on purpose....not the guns they hold. Accidents happen for sure, but if that is reason enough to ban guns, its reason enough to ban hunting knives. Both are not intended for use on another human...but when or if that happens? Its the users fault, not the weapons.

[worth]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

"Effectively, there is already a ban on handguns in Canada. They are already extremely tightly controlled and are only available to those requiring them for employment purposes (such as police and armoured car guards), legitimate target shooters, and approved collectors," said a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/239072
I guess the Minister for Public works does not know the gun laws either, how sad.

If you have a restricted license and belong to a gun club, you are a legitimate target shooter and can buy handguns. Nothing of what Azure said is wrong.

You can get a restricted license the same day you get your non-restricted. If you meet those two criteria, you can buy as many hand guns as you want. I can buy a handgun over the internet. just go to www.canadaammo.com and look at all the hand guns they have there.