Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, looks like you missed all those history lessons.
There is nothing more polarizing than Nazi and Communists.
Communists were internationalists. Nazi put one nation above all.
Communists declared that no state govt should ever exist, since this is an oppression. Nazi put govt as the 'uniting' core of the nation.
Communists declared that means of production should be property of people who work with them. Nazi worshiped private property.
Etc, etc.
You have stumbled on some truths, grasshopper! Hitler did indeed admire some of the American progressives for their racial and racist beliefs. He thought they had the right idea.
He took over the economy, lock stock and barrel, though. Turned companies into quasi-branches of the Super State......IF they became Nazis. Put the others out of business. Hitler owned the German economy and society 100%. As head of the Super State.
He was a NATIONALIST Socialist, though. Didn't want the Russkis directing things.
Well, we can discuss the root issue
The exact text of Amendment is:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What what the reasoning for this amendment to exist at all? Here it is:
"Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training."
So, the main and only reason to have this amendment is to prevent government from oppressing the people.
The idea is that people will organize and throw away the govt that went too far.
Hmm, tell me, when last time this happened?
And, what are chances for this happening in any foreseeable future when govt troops are equipped well beyond anything ordinary citizens have?
To truly support this amendment, people should be able to buy, keep and bear exactly same arms as govt does, i.e. - nukes, bombers, tanks etc
Without that ability, this amendment is just ... nothing.
Do you think the government would drop nuclear weapons on...Iowa City?
Do you think the government would turn weapons on their own families?
Witness reports are multiple shooters. Witness reports, one shooter was shot and died. The identified shooter only had one mag. the one inserted into the magwell on his weapon. The shooters attire, indicates this was a training mission... and exercise. You don't go into a suicide mission, wearing ear protection.
Well, we can discuss the root issue
The exact text of Amendment is:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What what the reasoning for this amendment to exist at all? Here it is:
"Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training."
So, the main and only reason to have this amendment is to prevent government from oppressing the people.
The idea is that people will organize and throw away the govt that went too far.
Hmm, tell me, when last time this happened?
And, what are chances for this happening in any foreseeable future when govt troops are equipped well beyond anything ordinary citizens have?
To truly support this amendment, people should be able to buy, keep and bear exactly same arms as govt does, i.e. - nukes, bombers, tanks etc
Without that ability, this amendment is just ... nothing.
It is meant for you as an individual, to be able to defend yourself from ALL forms of oppression.
I'm betting a majority of your fellow Americans want more gun control, not less. This includes many gun owners like myself.
I wouldn't bet on that. Of course it would all depend on what those laws are and whether they would be effective or not? Banning and criminalizing one's lawful activities and possessions because of the actions that are committed by others is not one of them.
There are already thousands of gun laws already on the books that address both the criminal and negligent mis-use of firearms. Along with thousands of laws that address every conceivable criminal act imaginable. Not one of them has prevented someone that is on a suicide mission to kill as many people as possible.
If you can think of one that will, I'll be willing to listen.
Not everyone is buying a $1,000 AR-15. Some are buying $150 Hi-Points. There are all types of guns of every price range out in the market place, both new and used.
Having to pay for a gun is not an infringement. You can't expect a manufacturer to give out their products for free. How could they possibly stay in business? How would they pay their employee's? Who would even want to work for free? Even if the government were to hand out guns for free somebody's got to pay for that through taxation. Obviously that wouldn't be fair to force those who have no interest in owning a gun to pay for those that do. Exercising a Constitutional right is voluntary, no one can force anybody to own a gun or express their opinions. But you are free to do so.
Forcing people to pay over and above the initial price of any gun for an insurance policy would indeed be an infringement. As it could be used as a method to deny people of their Constitutional right "to keep and bear arms" based on their income. Now you've put the decision of who can own a gun or not in the hands of unelected insurance company executives. Who could then arbitrarily decide who's eligible? I don't think so. For that matter should everyone be required to have liability insurance on every object or substance that can be use to cause harm or death to others? Either accidentally or intentionally. Baseball bats, golf clubs, knives, electrical cords, power tools, flammable liquids, matches and lighters, alcoholic beverages, EVERYTHING.
Again how can you determine whether someone is qualified to own a gun if they have no record of reckless or irresponsible behavior? Especially if it's the first time they've ever owned a gun? Unlike a vehicle where there are vehicle and traffic records on individual motorists.
The NICS system and Federal Form 4473 are two different things. When you go to buy a firearm from a federally licensed dealer you have to fill out Form 4473. Willfully lying on that form is a federal crime punishable by 10 years in prison and or a $250,000 fine. The dealer also has to perform the FBI NICS background check where they call into the system to find out whether a potential buyer has been convicted of a crime or has been adjudicated to be mentally unfit to lawfully possess a firearm.
All of that information is required by law to be entered into a national data base. I don't see how an insurance company could do a better job of vetting a potential gun buyer than that? Although there have been instances where that information was never entered into the system. In which case those who withheld that information should be held accountable both criminally and civilly.
So you're argument against responsible gun ownership by purchasing insurance is the good old "Slippery slope" argument. The "what if scenario" is always a good fallback tactic when no other explanation will do.
Yes you could get an 80% AR receiver made out of plastic for 49.00 on line. The rest of the parts can be purchased for under 125.00 pretty much anywhere on line from reputable dealers. One search on you tube and you can build it in an hour flat.
You can also purchase a complete AR15 for 389.00 from any number of on line dealers. I'll Bet for a person never convicted, with a good driving record and a clean history could purchase liability insurance for less than 200.00 a year.
Guy could have a Ruger 10/22, a 9mm with a trigger lock and an Ar15 with a locked cabinet and probably get insurance for less than 200.00 a year for the whole shebang if he was a good, honest, citizen with a good history.
If a guy didn't want to get a trigger lock and a locked cabinet because he felt it was an infringement on his rights, he could pay 700.00 a year instead of 200.00. Still has the freedom of the 2nd.
Well, we can discuss the root issue
The exact text of Amendment is:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What what the reasoning for this amendment to exist at all? Here it is:
"Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training."
So, the main and only reason to have this amendment is to prevent government from oppressing the people.
The idea is that people will organize and throw away the govt that went too far.
Hmm, tell me, when last time this happened?
And, what are chances for this happening in any foreseeable future when govt troops are equipped well beyond anything ordinary citizens have?
To truly support this amendment, people should be able to buy, keep and bear exactly same arms as govt does, i.e. - nukes, bombers, tanks etc
Without that ability, this amendment is just ... nothing.
Let me put it to you this way. It's highly unlikely that the Pentagon's arsenal would be used against American civilians. If so the military would be destroying their own friends, family and neighborhoods. There would be absolutely nothing left for them to come back to. Not only that but if the civilian population were destroyed who'd supply the military with supplies? There'd be nobody left to work the factories and farm the fields. All commerce would come to a grinding halt. My guess is that they would disobey orders, and in all probability would use those weapons against those that ordered them to do so.
About the only way they could possibly do it would be to go on house to house searches where they would be met with overwhelming and fierce resistance. As the armed civilian population at around 100 million or so would vastly outnumber government forces. The United States with it's superior military force couldn't beat back the North Vietnamese, short of using nuclear weapons. In which case there would have been a third world war and the end of all life as we know it.
You seem to forget that a large percent of active duty and retired military and law enforcement personal are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional Law. It wouldn't surprise me if they joined forces with the civilian population that takes up arms in the fight against a tyrannical form of government.
I don't think that you've thought this out very well?
He took over the economy, lock stock and barrel, though. Turned companies into quasi-branches of the Super State......IF they became Nazis. Put the others out of business. Hitler owned the German economy and society 100%. As head of the Super State.
He was a NATIONALIST Socialist, though. Didn't want the Russkis directing things.
Well, no.
Here are some facts:
"The Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible.[43] State ownership was to be avoided unless it was absolutely necessary for rearmament or the war effort, and even in those cases “the Reich often insisted on the inclusion in the contract of an option clause according to which the private firm operating the plant was entitled to purchase it.”[44] Companies privatized by the Nazis included the four major commercial banks in Germany, which had all come under public ownership during the prior years: Commerz– und Privatbank , Deutsche Bank und Disconto-Gesellschaft , Golddiskontbank and Dresdner Bank . [45][46] Also privatized were the Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways), at the time the largest single public enterprise in the world, the Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G. (United Steelworks), the second largest joint-stock company in Germany (the largest was IG Farben) and Vereinigte Oberschlesische Hüttenwerke AG , a company controlling all of the metal production in the Upper Silesian coal and steel industry. The government also sold a number of shipbuilding companies, and enhanced private utilities at the expense of municipally owned utilities companies.[47] Additionally, the Nazis privatized some public services which had been previously provided by the government, especially social and labor-related services, and these were mainly taken over by organizations affiliated with the Nazi Party that could be trusted to apply Nazi racial policies.[48]"
Filtering to whom privatize business does not mean to own it, or to own any business that was not originally public.
Do you think the government would drop nuclear weapons on...Iowa City?
Do you think the government would turn weapons on their own families?
I never expected our nation, a nation built on immigrants from other countries, would separate children from families and put them in cages to deal with a massive humanitarian crisis south of the border. If that can happen, then anything is possible.
Traditionally, America has always been the place that displaced, oppressed refugees always flee to when they live south of the border. Historically it has always been so, since our formation.
If we don't want to accept them any more, then change the law, don't just suddenly, arbitrarily separate families and pack them into cages built for 100 that are now crammed with 500.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
