The right to bear arms
Options
Replies
-
It is hard to imagine that any government that was so hell-bent on controlling its citizens through the use of military force would be the least deterred by a few rifles or machine guns.
But I don't think that the people in the "fight the government" camp have really thought this through--it's more an increasingly frenetic rationalization for their gun fetish.
Who's to say we will never be under such a threat? I don't expect any Red Dawn (original, please) scenarios in my neighborhood anytime soon, but how do we know it couldn't ever happen? Better yet, suppose the current rift between the right and the left becomes so contentious that we end up in another civil war? Far-fetched? Of course. But THAT, to me, is what the second amendment is all about. If something crazy happens, we need the ability to defend ourselves. We can't count on the Air Force to have jets and helicopters at the ready to strafe our neighborhoods. Call me crazy, but if there is a race riot/civil war/invasion, I will have a gun. and many that don't will hope someone they know will loan them one. I know this tragedy has us all feeling a little uneasy, but in other ways we feel WAY too safe. You can just look at 9/11 and see that we aren't always prepared for what could happen next.0 -
Has anyone seen the photo of the holocaust survivor speaking on America's current state? She warns Americans to gain control of their country, and compares our current position to the start of tyranny in Europe during her childhood.. She recalls as a child in Austria, Hitler being elected with an 80% vote. The changes started with food stamps, public education, nationalized healthcare (sounds like America huh?) then it became food rations, government control of the family and household, etc.... That is how Hilter went from a beloved candidate to a psychotic dictator. Slowly gaining control of the people.
Everyone here is so ignorant to think that a government is not capable of harming it's citizens. That is why the 2nd amendment was put in place to begin with. So the people have the power to defend themselves against enemies. Whether they be foreign or our our government. Tyranny has taken over or been fought in Great Britain, Africa, Asia and all throughout Europe. Why do people think that could not happen here? Truly naive.
I haven't posted here as I'm not a U.S. citizen, but I've read the comments with interest trying to understand the various viewpoints. I can't let this go by, though. Please, please, please, check these "facts". Do a little reading about Hitler. I don't believe he was ever elected in Austria, or for that matter in Germany either, although his appointment as Chancellor was confirmed in a plebiscite. He gained a lot of his power through violence much earlier than that. He had a lot of support from industrialists who saw great opportunity in the nationalism and anti-semitism of the Nazi party. I don't think it went quite the way your post reads.
Quite. Hitler was never elected in Austria - he invaded 'peacefully' in what was known as the Anschluss. He was appointed Chancellor in Germany, not elected, though the National Socialist party he lead did make major electoral gains in the Reichstag. The only direct election Hitler contested was the Presidential election of 1932, which he lost decisively to Paul von Hindenburg. In fact, Hitler's beginnings were as a revolutionary who espoused violence to achieve his aims. The 'facts' presented are inaccurate at best.
The National Socialists did indeed offer food support, public education (or at least Hitler Youth - not quite the same thing) and medical care - the clue to all these policies is is the 'Socialist' part of their name - and achieved popularity among the electorate in this way, with perfectly rational and appealing policies to a German populace still suffering the after-effects of the First World War and the Great Depression. However, their ideological roots, and their enforcement methods, lay in bigotry and thuggery. The situations are not comparable - if you're going to claim historical precedence, checking that the facts actually equate would be wise.
FBMandy55 is referring to Kitty Werthmann, an Austrian-American who leads the South Dakota "Eagle Forum." The Eagle Forum is a right wing American political group that fights against twentieth-century progress like equal rights for women. She is not a "Holocaust Survivor," as that term is usually used since she wasn't ever sent to a concentration camp. This is typical of the stuff she spouts at "tea party" gatherings."What I am about to tell you is something you’ve probably never heard or read in history books,” she likes to tell audiences.
"I am a witness to history. I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We voted him in."
If you remember the plot of the Sound of Music, the Von Trapp family escaped over the Alps rather than submit to the Nazis. Kitty wasn’t so lucky. Her family chose to stay in her native Austria. She was 10 years old, but bright and aware. And she was watching.
“We elected him by a landslide – 98 percent of the vote,” she recalls. She wasn’t old enough to vote in 1938 – approaching her 11th birthday. But she remembers. “Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.”
Not so.
http://www.tennesseesonsofliberty.com/2013/01/kitty-werthmann-survived-hitler-and.html
She was a witness to history but she either has a bad memory or has a 10-year-old's understanding of what she lived through.
Austria was set to hold a referendum on union with Hitler's Germany, which probably would have been rejected. Rather than let that happen, the Austrian Nazi party staged a coup d'etat and Hitler "just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force," meeting no resistance. After the invasion, the Nazis held a sham election which they claimed to win by 99.7%.
Werthmann's speech is typical right wing hyperbole. The things that brought Hitler to power just happen to be the same things Phylis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum oppose.0 -
It is hard to imagine that any government that was so hell-bent on controlling its citizens through the use of military force would be the least deterred by a few rifles or machine guns.
But I don't think that the people in the "fight the government" camp have really thought this through--it's more an increasingly frenetic rationalization for their gun fetish.
Who's to say we will never be under such a threat? I don't expect any Red Dawn (original, please) scenarios in my neighborhood anytime soon, but how do we know it couldn't ever happen? Better yet, suppose the current rift between the right and the left becomes so contentious that we end up in another civil war? Far-fetched? Of course. But THAT, to me, is what the second amendment is all about. If something crazy happens, we need the ability to defend ourselves. We can't count on the Air Force to have jets and helicopters at the ready to strafe our neighborhoods. Call me crazy, but if there is a race riot/civil war/invasion, I will have a gun. and many that don't will hope someone they know will loan them one. I know this tragedy has us all feeling a little uneasy, but in other ways we feel WAY too safe. You can just look at 9/11 and see that we aren't always prepared for what could happen next.
It is plausible (a Red Dawn scenario, even the new one)... My husband and I were just discussing this not too long ago... I know this sounds like paranoia (but it's not... it's more like seeing something creepy and now watching apprehensively) BUT my husband went to visit a friend and then bought a video game (yes, I know it's a video game but hear me out here).. that was written in 2010 (?) perhaps earlier because I believe it was also released then as well... called Homefront... now the backstory of this is creepy.... and an ex-CIA agent was consulted on this story to make it plausible.... Anyway the back story had "predicted" (or more acurately calculated) certian times to an almost precise accuracy... The firing of missiles from N. Korea, the death of Kim Jong Il (they were a month off of that date), Kim Jong Un taking the lead, Kim Jong Un speaking to the UN (which he is supposed to do next month)... and on and on.... it was very creepy as it was written before the actual events had unfolded... http://homefront.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline0 -
2013
February 19th
Kim Jong-un achieves in negotiating peace between North and South Korea, forming the foundation for the Greater Korean Republic. He also receives the Nobel Peace Prize for his accomplishment of Korean reunification.[5]
Get back to me in a couple of months and let me know how accurate that "prediction" is!0 -
2013
February 19th
Kim Jong-un achieves in negotiating peace between North and South Korea, forming the foundation for the Greater Korean Republic. He also receives the Nobel Peace Prize for his accomplishment of Korean reunification.[5]
Get back to me in a couple of months and let me know how accurate that "prediction" is!
Yeah, Yeah... I know that is off... However, Kim Jong-un is already talking about reunification of Korea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/world/asia/north-koreas-leader-kim-jong-un-makes-overture-to-south.html?_r=0
So why don't we just wait and see.... All I'm saying is as much as people like to think that stuff like this is derived from paranoia... doesn't mean that it can't nor it won't happen.0 -
It is hard to imagine that any government that was so hell-bent on controlling its citizens through the use of military force would be the least deterred by a few rifles or machine guns.
But I don't think that the people in the "fight the government" camp have really thought this through--it's more an increasingly frenetic rationalization for their gun fetish.
Who's to say we will never be under such a threat? I don't expect any Red Dawn (original, please) scenarios in my neighborhood anytime soon, but how do we know it couldn't ever happen? Better yet, suppose the current rift between the right and the left becomes so contentious that we end up in another civil war? Far-fetched? Of course. But THAT, to me, is what the second amendment is all about. If something crazy happens, we need the ability to defend ourselves. We can't count on the Air Force to have jets and helicopters at the ready to strafe our neighborhoods. Call me crazy, but if there is a race riot/civil war/invasion, I will have a gun. and many that don't will hope someone they know will loan them one. I know this tragedy has us all feeling a little uneasy, but in other ways we feel WAY too safe. You can just look at 9/11 and see that we aren't always prepared for what could happen next.
It is plausible (a Red Dawn scenario, even the new one)... My husband and I were just discussing this not too long ago... I know this sounds like paranoia (but it's not... it's more like seeing something creepy and now watching apprehensively) BUT my husband went to visit a friend and then bought a video game (yes, I know it's a video game but hear me out here).. that was written in 2010 (?) perhaps earlier because I believe it was also released then as well... called Homefront... now the backstory of this is creepy.... and an ex-CIA agent was consulted on this story to make it plausible.... Anyway the back story had "predicted" (or more acurately calculated) certian times to an almost precise accuracy... The firing of missiles from N. Korea, the death of Kim Jong Il (they were a month off of that date), Kim Jong Un taking the lead, Kim Jong Un speaking to the UN (which he is supposed to do next month)... and on and on.... it was very creepy as it was written before the actual events had unfolded... http://homefront.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline
Anyone who reads the newspapers would know about those things. Kim Jong Il was not a young or healthy man. Kim Jong Un was known to be in the line as long as their was not a soft coup after Il's death. They have been shooting off rockets for the past decade (often to hilarious results).0 -
FBMandy55 is referring to Kitty Werthmann, an Austrian-American who leads the South Dakota "Eagle Forum." The Eagle Forum is a right wing American political group that fights against twentieth-century progress like equal rights for women. She is not a "Holocaust Survivor," as that term is usually used since she wasn't ever sent to a concentration camp. This is typical of the stuff she spouts at "tea party" gatherings."What I am about to tell you is something you’ve probably never heard or read in history books,” she likes to tell audiences.
"I am a witness to history. I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We voted him in."
If you remember the plot of the Sound of Music, the Von Trapp family escaped over the Alps rather than submit to the Nazis. Kitty wasn’t so lucky. Her family chose to stay in her native Austria. She was 10 years old, but bright and aware. And she was watching.
“We elected him by a landslide – 98 percent of the vote,” she recalls. She wasn’t old enough to vote in 1938 – approaching her 11th birthday. But she remembers. “Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.”
Not so.
http://www.tennesseesonsofliberty.com/2013/01/kitty-werthmann-survived-hitler-and.html
She was a witness to history but she either has a bad memory or has a 10-year-old's understanding of what she lived through.
Austria was set to hold a referendum on union with Hitler's Germany, which probably would have been rejected. Rather than let that happen, the Austrian Nazi party staged a coup d'etat and Hitler "just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force," meeting no resistance. After the invasion, the Nazis held a sham election which they claimed to win by 99.7%.
Werthmann's speech is typical right wing hyperbole. The things that brought Hitler to power just happen to be the same things Phylis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum oppose.
Ah...thanks for providing the background! I figured it had to be something of the sort, but not being in the US, this charming lady and her misrepresentation of history are unfamiliar to me.0 -
It is hard to imagine that any government that was so hell-bent on controlling its citizens through the use of military force would be the least deterred by a few rifles or machine guns.
But I don't think that the people in the "fight the government" camp have really thought this through--it's more an increasingly frenetic rationalization for their gun fetish.
Who's to say we will never be under such a threat? I don't expect any Red Dawn (original, please) scenarios in my neighborhood anytime soon, but how do we know it couldn't ever happen? Better yet, suppose the current rift between the right and the left becomes so contentious that we end up in another civil war? Far-fetched? Of course. But THAT, to me, is what the second amendment is all about. If something crazy happens, we need the ability to defend ourselves. We can't count on the Air Force to have jets and helicopters at the ready to strafe our neighborhoods. Call me crazy, but if there is a race riot/civil war/invasion, I will have a gun. and many that don't will hope someone they know will loan them one. I know this tragedy has us all feeling a little uneasy, but in other ways we feel WAY too safe. You can just look at 9/11 and see that we aren't always prepared for what could happen next.
It is plausible (a Red Dawn scenario, even the new one)... My husband and I were just discussing this not too long ago... I know this sounds like paranoia (but it's not... it's more like seeing something creepy and now watching apprehensively) BUT my husband went to visit a friend and then bought a video game (yes, I know it's a video game but hear me out here).. that was written in 2010 (?) perhaps earlier because I believe it was also released then as well... called Homefront... now the backstory of this is creepy.... and an ex-CIA agent was consulted on this story to make it plausible.... Anyway the back story had "predicted" (or more acurately calculated) certian times to an almost precise accuracy... The firing of missiles from N. Korea, the death of Kim Jong Il (they were a month off of that date), Kim Jong Un taking the lead, Kim Jong Un speaking to the UN (which he is supposed to do next month)... and on and on.... it was very creepy as it was written before the actual events had unfolded... http://homefront.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline
Anyone who reads the newspapers would know about those things. Kim Jong Il was not a young or healthy man. Kim Jong Un was known to be in the line as long as their was not a soft coup after Il's death. They have been shooting off rockets for the past decade (often to hilarious results).
Yes, but it wasn't until recently that they have been fairly successful with their attempts at firing rockets and nuclear warheads... again, regardless of whether or not it's Korea... it could be just about anyone at this point... My point is, you just never know what is going to happen... and I would rather be able to have a fighting chance of survival than just to lay down and take it.
But back to the actual topic at hand... I agree the most with this editorial. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun0 -
Just popping back in to say the NRA's ludicrous attempts to blame video games for gun violence has caused me to lose all respect for them.
And I used to be a card carrying member (as well as a card carrying Green Party member, tremble with fear, rightwingers! Muahaha!).
Anyway, their attempts to shift the blame is just sad. Guns don't kill people, video games kill people? Really? Will they make that their new slogan?
Sad. You guys running the NRA used to be smarter than that. What the hell happened to you?0 -
If it came down to an armed revolt, you're either a non-American or a moron if you think any significant amount of our military would turn their guns on American citizens. They would be far more likely to join the revolt. Our armed forces are volunteers (to the extent that they are not drafted into duty; they CHOOSE it) who feel very strongly about protecting our freedoms. Their loyalty is to the people, not the governemnt.
So the issue is not about having to fight our own military. It's about living in a country where the only people who are allowed to have guns are politicians, law enforcement officers, and, of course, criminals. There are 300 million guns in this country, about as many as there are people. You can't just pass a law that says guns are illegal and BOOM, all the guns disappear. You're not going to get very many people to give them up voluntarily, and you're not going to force people to give them up without the armed revolt mentioned above.
The thing foreigners don't seem to grasp about America is that we do not consider ourselves to be subjects of our government. WE control THEM, not the other way around. And guns are just about the only way to ensure that that is always the case, which is why the Second Amendment was included in our Constitution. If they were not already afraid of a citizen revolt, the government would've banned all guns of any kind years ago.0 -
We control them by voting them out, not by holding a gun to their head.0
-
Just popping back in to say the NRA's ludicrous attempts to blame video games for gun violence has caused me to lose all respect for them.
And I used to be a card carrying member (as well as a card carrying Green Party member, tremble with fear, rightwingers! Muahaha!).
Anyway, their attempts to shift the blame is just sad. Guns don't kill people, video games kill people? Really? Will they make that their new slogan?
Sad. You guys running the NRA used to be smarter than that. What the hell happened to you?
Mara, we may disagree on politics... but I
you... My husband is a card carrying member (and even taught rifle for them (I think I said this already)) of the NRA (I think I am by proxy) and even he thinks they are moronic at times. While I think that media can desensitize people to violence or even give them ideas... it still falls under personal responsibility. My husband plays COD and other first person shooters (I'm horrible at them, the most I play is "old school" Bond on easy or multiplayer) and watches Dexter (and I watch Criminal Minds) I am pretty damn sure he isn't thinking about mass shooting anywhere.
While I honestly think that guns should be out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, I don't know how to do that except to make it harder to get for all... But even with that I don't know how I feel about registering a gun... On one hand, I agree with it because it makes it harder to get... meaning quite often you can't just walk in a purchase a gun (of any kind) right off the shelf as you can a loaf of bread... and you MUST have a license to lawfully carry it around in public (which takes time to get as well)... but at the same time I don't want the registers to be used to intimidate or even (God forbid) confiscate the firearms... it pissed me off when a New York paper published every single name and geocoded it on a map with all the registered gun users in two counties.... because they feel that people have a right to know if their neighbors own guns and got away with it because it's "public record"...0 -
We control them by voting them out, not by holding a gun to their head.
Hopefully, it stays that way.0 -
If it came down to an armed revolt, you're either a non-American or a moron if you think any significant amount of our military would turn their guns on American citizens.
The National Guard has turned their guns on Americans. Look up the history of strikes and demonstrations. Police have used violence even more often.
In fact, if we are going to argue that the right to keep and bear arms protects us from fascism we have a much stronger basis for that argument by pointing to police usage in the suppression of demonstrations and speech, since the police are not nearly as well armed as the military.0 -
Just popping back in to say the NRA's ludicrous attempts to blame video games for gun violence has caused me to lose all respect for them.
And I used to be a card carrying member (as well as a card carrying Green Party member, tremble with fear, rightwingers! Muahaha!).
Anyway, their attempts to shift the blame is just sad. Guns don't kill people, video games kill people? Really? Will they make that their new slogan?
Sad. You guys running the NRA used to be smarter than that. What the hell happened to you?
Mara, we may disagree on politics... but I you... My husband is a card carrying member (and even taught rifle for them (I think I said this already)) of the NRA (I think I am by proxy) and even he thinks they are moronic at times. While I think that media can desensitize people to violence or even give them ideas... it still falls under personal responsibility. My husband plays COD and other first person shooters (I'm horrible at them, the most I play is "old school" Bond on easy or multiplayer) and watches Dexter (and I watch Criminal Minds) I am pretty damn sure he isn't thinking about mass shooting anywhere.
While I honestly think that guns should be out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, I don't know how to do that except to make it harder to get for all... But even with that I don't know how I feel about registering a gun... On one hand, I agree with it because it makes it harder to get... meaning quite often you can't just walk in a purchase a gun (of any kind) right off the shelf as you can a loaf of bread... and you MUST have a license to lawfully carry it around in public (which takes time to get as well)... but at the same time I don't want the registers to be used to intimidate or even (God forbid) confiscate the firearms... it pissed me off when a New York paper published every single name and geocoded it on a map with all the registered gun users in two counties.... because they feel that people have a right to know if their neighbors own guns and got away with it because it's "public record"...
I play video games all the time and I have never shot anyone. In fact I prefer pepper spray to getting a concealed carry permit because I know if I shot someone thinking they were attacking me and I misjudged I'd spend the rest of my life feeling so guilty I wouldn't be able to stand it.
I also really like target shooting. If I could afford the ammo I'd do it a lot, and my favorite thing to shoot is an assault rifle. (I'm actually pretty good with it, can't say the same for a pistol!)
And whoever researched and wrote that article publishing gun owner's names is an *kitten*! What an awful thing to do, public record and free speech or not.0 -
I agree Mara... It would have been one thing to use it in a statistical analysis of the area... but to use it that way, in my opinion, was just plain douchey.... and now apparently a Connecticut lawmaker wants to make it mandatory... Nothing says "Hey, come rob my house while I'm gone! I have guns somewhere hidden here" (since the majority of guns used in crimes and mass shootings are stolen guns) like posting who owns the guns and where they live. With a google map to give directions straight to their house...
Seriously, what if there was a woman and her children that were attempting to hide from an estranged abusive spouse and she bought a gun to protect herself and her kids?
I get that it's public record and I know what that means... but I find that to be an abuse of the right. But then I also find it an abuse of that right when some anonymous douchecanoe decides that it's his right to obtain all civil employees and post their names, positition titles, and salaries online in the name of transparency (even though, like previously stated, he himself remains happily and ironically anonymous).0 -
worth noting is that the same paper that published all of those addresses -- so that the people could feel safe around people with guns, I guess? -- then felt like they were endangered by upset gun owners. so they hired armed security.0
-
worth noting is that the same paper that published all of those addresses -- so that the people could feel safe around people with guns, I guess? -- then felt like they were endangered by upset gun owners. so they hired armed security.
What's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander, I guess.0 -
I don't get what you mean. If there's hypocrisy in this, it seems to be on side of "law abiding" gun owners who are making death threats and sending envelopes of mysterious powder, a tiny minority, no doubt. Did the newspaper publish something that says its publishers and employees don't have a right to exercise their second amendment rights in addition to their first amendment rights?0
-
I do indeed find it a bit hypocritical when those that would like to heavily restrict and perhaps even outright ban, as well as, confiscate firearms hire armed guards.... if the police were that good at being able to protect the people then why don't they just call them, if that's what they truly believe. Whether that be politicians or newpaper people.
And while I don't condone threatening people with any type of harm, what did they expect? Seriously? You publish thousands of gun owners names and addresses.... potentially putting households in danger for any reason to further your own agenda... Did they seriously think they weren't going to get some major negative reaction to this? Anyone with even a molecule for a brain could have seen that one coming.
BTW, hire armed guards or not, I don't care... but I am going to think you are a tad hypocritical for it if you are so anti-firearm to do things such as this.0
