Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumSlouching Towards Nuremberg?
This is a OP in GD drawing parallels between America of today and Nazi Germany in the 1930s - the gist of being that the US government is implementing laws and policies similar to the Nazis.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1041761
What is interesting is how the author fails to mention the 1938 German Weapons Act which tightened gun laws for many while ensuring the party faithful had all the weapons they needed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act
If the premise of the OP is true, and we are slouching towards Nuremberg it will be interesting to see gun control advocates handle this issue.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,169 posts)Good.
Didn't want there to be any misunderstanding on that point.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I think it will be interesting to watch DUs bipolar nature over this. The Nuremberg OP will get a bunch of recs and plenty of "hell yes" responses. And then many of those same posters will turn around and say that only the government should have guns. Or that the government will never come for our guns.
It should be fun to watch.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,169 posts)He's quite anti-gun, so I hear.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,169 posts)Are you really that dense?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Either way, this is close to the edge.
BTW: As your post states, gun control was lifted in 1938 in Germany for persons who served the regime. So, one might more accurately argue that selective abolition of firearms restrictions is a hallmark of Nazism.
hack89
(39,171 posts)whereby on one hand we hear that the government is not coming to take our guns and on the other that the government is implementing laws and policies that mirror the Nazis in the 1930s.
If in fact the US government is "slouching towards Nuremberg" then would we expect to see similar gun control laws passed in America?
I personally reject the notion that we are "slouching towards Nuremberg" - President Obama's positions on gun control is one of the reasons I believe that.
I also reject both "Gun Control=Nazism, or Obama+Gun Control=Nazism." - I support reasonable gun control. We may argue as to what is reasonable but I understand that the Constitution supports gun control.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Both hands with guns seem to be yours, and you appear to be setting up a straw man argument by reference to the other post. Then you top it off by calling DU bipolar.
Your logic is peculiar. Yours is one of the strangest pro-gun posts I've seen. I will agree that this topic doesn't seem to lend itself particularly to rational discussion.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)people who support enhanced restrictions on some forms of guns -- a semiautomatic weapons sales ban, for instance -- you seem to imply, are somehow making the advance toward totalitarian gov't easier.
I would argue that easy access to assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols, and their use in massacres and thousands of murders each year in America, is actually hastening the slide into authoritarianism. But, that isn't why I took exception to your post.
You seem to be saying that somehow DUers who disagree with you on this issue are unconsciously embracing fascism or are irrational. If that's your point, I don't think you made it very clearly in this post.
hack89
(39,171 posts)they are motivated by the right reasons.
But we see thread after thread basically saying the government is the enemy of the people - take any OWS thread as a good example. Or any drone / extrajudicial killing thread. Or any thread talking about Tea Baggers / Repukes /conservatives. Or any police abuse thread. And then on a gun control thread they advocate giving the government more power and control - because the government can be trusted to make us safe.
Makes my head spin.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)semi automatic rifles are not used in thousands of murders. Twice as many people are murdered by bare hands as all long guns combined. According to the last study I saw, most pistols used in crimes were revolvers.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)according to study cited here: http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/top_10_crime_guns.htm And given that's based in 12 year old data, and that the majority of handguns sold are semiautos, I think it's safe to conclude that most crimes are committed with semiautos.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Although I would not describe small frame Smith and Wessons as "cheapo" even used in pawn shops, unless of course he is used to shopping at the Holland and Holland gun room.
Out of the semi autos two might be able to hold more rounds than the average revolver, depending on the model.
So, why didn't the ATF publish it?
Now look at where most of these crimes are committed. DC, Chicago, Newark, LA, NYC. They were not bought at B&M Stained Glass and Firearms.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Then criminals would turn to revolvers. And there a number of .357 Magnum revolvers that hold 7 or 8 rounds.
And then those will be the next thing proposed to be banned. And then 6 shot revolvers. Then 5 shot, then all handguns.
not at all close to the edge. The original OP in GD closer.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Except the 1928 law and the 1938 laws were passed by rather different legislatures.
The 1938 law deregulated gun ownership for almost everyone except for the Jewish people. Even those people whose ownership wasn't as free as those organizations mentioned above had their access to firearms increased. Also the 1928 law was a LOOSENING of the 1919 law by the very source you reference.
So actually the first thing the nazis started doing when they took power was to give guns back to most of the people.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)So, I would not have gotten my guns back.
the 1919 law was related to the Treaty of Versailles. The 1928 law was because of violent groups, left and right, where were against the republic.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)The loosening of gun laws was for everyone except Jewish people. The abolition of gun laws was for party members. Again. It is more logical to say "The first thing the Nazi's started doing was giving people guns" than to stupidly suggest that the Nazi's increased gun regulation.
I am for regulated ownership of firearms. Personally the only thing I would require registration for would be for clips that hold more than 30 rounds.
But everytime a Gun nut (and yes, I am using that word) makes an argument that somehow 'the first thing the nazi's did is go for peoples guns' they make themselves look like paranoid idiots who flunked out of history.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)which may or may not be that big of a deal, although I would have the five dollar transference tax like pen guns.
I don't know anyone who actually owns such a thing. I don't see Holmes doing for their marketing either.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I would prefer if 30 round magazines were also on the list and that they required merely a simple registration, not quite up to the NFA level. Hell, I would trade that for knocking the short barreled rifles off the list.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)410 and 20 gauge shotguns?
larger ones, don't know.
sarisataka
(18,779 posts)to good registered party members. It was a carrot put out to further the one party system.
Somewhat irrelevant as the Nazis had firmly seized power by that point so any opposition parties were merely for show and the leadership likely infiltrated in any case.
To the average American however the gun control= Nazism would be accepted without question.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)The original gun control laws in had nothing to do with the Nazi's and were (as previously mentioned) part of the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. The Nazi's just took advantage of this by playing on a nationalist chord about humiliation and the 'stab in the back' or whatever. They were all about deregulating the possession of firearms, particularly to party members.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Europe and Japan.