Handgun in the 4R

[hube01]

Hube, I suggest that you actually read the Heller decision. Scalia laws out the inescapable fact that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Those who argue that it isn't somehow believe that the phrase "the right of the people" in the 2nd Amendment means something different in the 2nd than the very same phrase means in the 1st and 4th Amendments.

The Heller decision clearly lays out how the meaning of the Amendment is clear, whether by analyzing the text directly, or by reviewing the historical context, or by reading the writings of the men who drafted the Bill of Rights.

The "collectivist" view of the 2nd Amendment and the previous SCOTUS decisions that you seem to revere were based on the infamous, racist Dred Scott decision. The early gun control laws were enacted in the South, after the civil war, to keep blacks disarmed and at the mercy of white thugs.

Look, you and I are not going to agree on this. I happen to believe that our government is not coming to take our guns and that that if possible, there is a way to reduce the risk, I'm alright with that! Furthermore, if you are not, that's fine too.... However, I will tell you that refusing to come to the table and find common ground, while believing that our government is coming for those who have guns, will not end up well. Specifically, if people with your strong belief did come to the table and try to find common ground, maybe the outcome would be less one sided....

Lastly, I can tell you that I am happy they pulled James Yeager's permit. Anyone that unstable shouldn't' have a permit, let along a weapon! It's guys like that who keep those of us trying to find common ground move to the other side.....

 

[hube01]

But Heller also says gun control is permissible for certain types of weapons. Wasn't that part of the point in the text you've quoted?

Dawned on me that I am part of the topic drift. More on topic, one of my best 4Runner investments:

Correct! certain types of weapons, not all of them...

 

[SigSense]

I happen to believe that our government is not coming to take our guns and that that if possible, there is a way to reduce the risk, I'm alright with that!

I'm sure millions of people believed what YOU believe, with vastly different outcomes.....

 

[Stifler]

I happen to believe that our government is not coming to take our guns and that that if possible, there is a way to reduce the risk, I'm alright with that! Furthermore, if you are not, that's fine too....

you are fing ret@rded then..... just saying

 

[H2O_Doc]

I'm sure millions of people believed what YOU believe, with vastly different outcomes.....

They might not have believed that at all. They lived in a nation caught up in extreme militarism and nationalism that believed in German exceptionalism. They had long been victims of prejudice and discrimination. Hmmm.

Gun control predated the Nazi rise and it wasn't the primary tool for manipulating a population. Propaganda and the incitement of fear and paranoia were far more useful. Hmmmm.

Using the suffering and deaths of millions of people to try to make your point (incorrect as it is) speaks of selfish interests and a retreat from reason and decency.

 

[blackrifle01]

They might not have believed that at all. They lived in a nation caught up in extreme militarism and nationalism that believed in German exceptionalism. They had long been victims of prejudice and discrimination. Hmmm.

Gun control predated the Nazi rise and it wasn't the primary tool for manipulating a population. Propaganda and the incitement of fear and paranoia were far more useful. Hmmmm.

Using the suffering and deaths of millions of people to try to make your point (incorrect as it is) speaks of selfish interests and a retreat from reason and decency.

I'm glad you pointed out the tactics and strategy of the anti-gun left wing. I agree with you: demonizing inanimate objects and burying facts via propaganda to pander to emotion has no place in the national debate.

Hopefully, the anti-gun people will stop using tragedies like Sandy-Hook or Aurora for their own benefit.

 

[blackrifle01]

Look, you and I are not going to agree on this. I happen to believe that our government is not coming to take our guns and that that if possible, there is a way to reduce the risk, I'm alright with that! Furthermore, if you are not, that's fine too.... However, I will tell you that refusing to come to the table and find common ground, while believing that our government is coming for those who have guns, will not end up well. Specifically, if people with your strong belief did come to the table and try to find common ground, maybe the outcome would be less one sided....

Lastly, I can tell you that I am happy they pulled James Yeager's permit. Anyone that unstable shouldn't' have a permit, let along a weapon! It's guys like that who keep those of us trying to find common ground move to the other side.....

So you advocate the government come and take my guns since my guns look scary. Because they operate using magazines that hold more bullets than some random, arbitrary number picked by some simpleton bureaucrat. Regardless of the fact that my class of guns (semi-automatic rifles) are responsible for far fewer deaths than swimming pools or plastic bags. Even though FBI and DOJ statistics show that semi-automatic rifles are irrelevant to the actual crime rate, gun crimes, or gun deaths. Even though the FBI came out and said the last AWB did absolutely NOTHING to reduce or prevent crime. In the face of those facts, you still advocate taking away my rights simply because you don't value them.

That is disgusting and offensive.

 

[M1911]

Look, you and I are not going to agree on this. I happen to believe that our government is not coming to take our guns and that that if possible, there is a way to reduce the risk, I'm alright with that! Furthermore, if you are not, that's fine too.... However, I will tell you that refusing to come to the table and find common ground, while believing that our government is coming for those who have guns, will not end up well. Specifically, if people with your strong belief did come to the table and try to find common ground, maybe the outcome would be less one sided.

1) People with my strong belief are already involved -- the NRA.

2) There is no common ground. "Compromise" with the gun control community means giving up some gun rights that they don't yet have the political power to take. If we give up assault weapons now, it is not like they will decide that is enough. They won't. In a few years, they will back at the table trying to take away "pocket rockets" (concealed carry handguns) or "sniper rifles" (what I call a deer rifle). The gun control proponents want nothing less than banning all guns. They have stated as much in the past.

But Heller also says gun control is permissible for certain types of weapons.

The limits of what is and is not permissible according to Heller is still being litigated and will be for quite some time.

 

[M1911]

Oh, I thought you were pointing to some sort of correlation or cause and effect. I thought you meant gun control could have an inverse effect on crime, making it not such a good idea Ill take you at you word that no such relationship exists.

Sorry for any confusion.

John Lott found a weak correlation between concealed carry laws and less crime. John Lott's Website

 

[hube01]

I'm sure millions of people believed what YOU believe, with vastly different outcomes.....

You are definitely a pathetic small minded individual. I do believe I actually feel sorry for you.....

 

[hube01]

1) People with my strong belief are already involved -- the NRA.

2) There is no common ground. "Compromise" with the gun control community means giving up some gun rights that they don't yet have the political power to take. If we give up assault weapons now, it is not like they will decide that is enough. They won't. In a few years, they will back at the table trying to take away "pocket rockets" (concealed carry handguns) or "sniper rifles" (what I call a deer rifle). The gun control proponents want nothing less than banning all guns. They have stated as much in the past.



The limits of what is and is not permissible according to Heller is still being litigated and will be for quite some time.

That's fine with me! :lol:

 

[hube01]

you are fing ret@rded then..... just saying

Did that take you all day to come up with that?

 

[hube01]

I'm sure millions of people believed what YOU believe, with vastly different outcomes.....

Sig,

Below is some more information for you. If you need help with the bigger words, let me know!


This week, people were shocked when the Drudge Report posted a giant picture of Hitler over a headline speculating that the White House will proceed with executive orders to limit access to firearms. The proposed orders are exceedingly tame, but Drudge’s reaction is actually a common conservative response to any invocation of gun control.

The NRA, Fox News, Fox News (again), Alex Jones, email chains, Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher, Gun Owners of America, etc., all agree that gun control was critical to Hitler’s rise to power. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (“America’s most aggressive defender of firearms ownership”) is built almost exclusively around this notion, popularizing posters of Hitler giving the Nazi salute next to the text: “All in favor of ‘gun control’ raise your right hand.”

In his 1994 book, NRA head Wayne LaPierre dwelled on the Hitler meme at length, writing: “In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolf Hitler.”

And it makes a certain amount of intuitive sense: If you’re going to impose a brutal authoritarian regime on your populace, better to disarm them first so they can’t fight back.

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.

The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning? Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews? What about public works — Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not. These are merely implements that can be used for good or ill, much as gun advocates like to argue about guns themselves. If guns don’t kill people, then neither does gun control cause genocide (genocidal regimes cause genocide).

Besides, Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?” he told Salon.

Proponents of the theory sometimes point to the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as evidence that, as Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano put it, “those able to hold onto their arms and their basic right to self-defense were much more successful in resisting the Nazi genocide.” But as the Tablet’s Michael Moynihan points out, Napolitano’s history (curiously based on a citation of work by French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson) is a bit off. In reality, only about 20 Germans were killed, while some 13,000 Jews were massacred. The remaining 50,000 who survived were promptly sent off to concentration camps.

Robert Spitzer, a political scientist who studies gun politics and chairs the political science department at SUNY Cortland, told Mother Jones’ Gavin Aronsen that the prohibition on Jewish gun ownership was merely a symptom, not the problem itself. “[It] wasn’t the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights, and they were a minority group,” he explained.

Meanwhile, much of the Hitler myth is based on an infamous quote falsely attributed to the Fuhrer, which extols the virtue of gun control:

This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

The quote has been widely reproduced in blog posts and opinion columns about gun control, but it’s “probably a fraud and was likely never uttered,” according to Harcourt. “This quotation, often seen without any date or citation at all, suffers from several credibility problems, the most significant of which is that the date often given [1935] has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration, nor would there have been any need for the Nazis to pass such a law, since gun registration laws passed by the Weimar government were already in effect,” researchers at the useful website GunCite note.

“As for Stalin,” Bartov continued, “the very idea of either gun control or the freedom to bear arms would have been absurd to him. His regime used violence on a vast scale, provided arms to thugs of all descriptions, and stripped not guns but any human image from those it declared to be its enemies. And then, when it needed them, as in WWII, it took millions of men out of the Gulags, trained and armed them and sent them to fight Hitler, only to send back the few survivors into the camps if they uttered any criticism of the regime.”

Bartov added that this misreading of history is not only intellectually dishonest, but also dangerous. “I happen to have been a combat soldier and officer in the Israeli Defense Forces and I know what these assault rifles can do,” he said in an email.

He continued: “Their assertion that they need these guns to protect themselves from the government — as supposedly the Jews would have done against the Hitler regime — means not only that they are innocent of any knowledge and understanding of the past, but also that they are consciously or not imbued with the type of fascist or Bolshevik thinking that they can turn against a democratically elected government, indeed turn their guns on it, just because they don’t like its policies, its ideology, or the color, race and origin of its leaders.”

Alex Seitz-Wald is Salon's political reporter. Email him at [email protected], and follow him on Twitter @aseitzwald.
MORE ALEX SEITZ-WALD.

 

[Laubage]

Besides, Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?” he told Salon.

What he's saying is that we need to open up machine guns, tanks and bomber aircraft sales to civilians. Excellent point! :uzi:

At least for now we can bide our time with our ultimate killing instrument... the armor piercing, banana clip fed, AR-15 assault rifle.

 

[Laubage]

The fact that the German army alone was 20,700,000 strong in 1939 and the entire jewish population (including women and children) was 565,000 might have played a role in their inability to defend themselves... even with guns.

And gun control DOES cause genocide when there's gun control on only one side of the equation.

 

[H2O_Doc]

I'm glad you pointed out the tactics and strategy of the anti-gun left wing. I agree with you: demonizing inanimate objects and burying facts via propaganda to pander to emotion has no place in the national debate.

Hopefully, the anti-gun people will stop using tragedies like Sandy-Hook or Aurora for their own benefit.

These are the tactics of both sides. And I am sure gun control advocates will not let a funeral go to waste. For me, I don't choose to adopt bad behavior and abandon reason just because the other side does it. That's too often the basis for doing really horrible things. A little intellectual maturity can go a long way.

 

[H2O_Doc]

The limits of what is and is not permissible according to Heller is still being litigated and will be for quite some time.

Well, it is a little complicated. Part of what Scalia said is in the holding and is now the law. A lot of it is dicta and a more savvy retort to gun control advocates is to point that out (and say something clever like "don't be a dicta me").

Heller, particularly Scalia's opinion really is a god read and does provide gun owners with a lot of "ammo" (man I crack myself up). He takes it to Stevens pretty good on the collectivist and militia arguments. But, Scalia does recognize the limits that exist within the 2nd based on a number of sources and lines of reasoning. Another savvy argument would be to note what Scalia says about federal versus municipal limits.

Nazis, as useful as they are need not be your trump card. We can make cogent arguments against gun control with them or Joey Stalin.

 

[Stifler]

Did that take you all day to come up with that?

nope it was evident and apparent... jumped right out

 

[SigSense]

History Shows Us........

Hube01, please reference WHERE you get your information from if you want to use it in your discussions. Your post was a Salon Magazine article here:

The Hitler gun control lie - Salon.com

Hitler envisioned his Third Reich as a “clean” society. To him and his Socialist Party (yes, Hitler was a Socialist) Germany was filled with "unclean" classes of humans. He spoke about gun control on numerous occasions, and after entering office enacted subsequent legislation.

From various historical books written post-World War II we can read about Hitler’s actions reference gun control.

Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.

Ref: Amazon.com: Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944: His Private Conversations (9781929631056): Adolf Hitler, Norman Cameron, R. H. Stevens, H. R. Trevor-Roper: Books

https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&query=721290467

Hitler on Gun Control:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country."

The Salon article correctly points out that gun control was initiated for ALL Germans in legislation in the early 1900s, but what they FAIL to print (due to poor research) was that Germany changed their weapons laws in 1938. The Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht)--the infamous Nazi rampage against Germany's Jews--took place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 8, the New York Times reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews," explaining:

The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been "disarmed" with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment.1

Here is a transcript of those very laws:

Gun politics in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
11 November 1938

With a basis in §31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and §9 of the Führer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938

(Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:

§1 
Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

§2 
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

§3 
The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in §1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

§4 
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

§5 
For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.
§6 
This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.

Berlin, 11 November 1938
 Minister of the Interior 
Frick
​

So now Hube01 advises us all that it was OK for Hitler to disarm a class of society. What religion or social class are you from Hube01? How would you feel if the US Government made laws that prohibited gun ownership by your religious beliefs? There seems to be a lot of people who don't see the connection between gun registration, gun licensing, and disarming those you intend to subjugate. Facts are facts, Hitler enacted laws that specifically FORBID Jews from owning guns.

The last 100 years has shown what terrorist governments can accomplish. They have committed genocide against millions of people. What do these tyrannical episodes have in common? The people were unarmed. Government confiscation of firearms kept by law-abiding citizens has historically been associated with some of the world's most insidious tyrannies.

But, please don't just believe me or Salon Magazine, conduct your own due diligence:

Kristallnacht — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

On November 9 to November 10, 1938, in an incident known as "Kristallnacht", Nazis in Germany torched synagogues, vandalized Jewish homes, schools and businesses and killed close to 100 Jews. In the aftermath of Kristallnacht, also called the "Night of Broken Glass," some 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and sent to Nazi concentration camps. German Jews had been subjected to repressive policies since 1933, when Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) became chancellor of Germany. However, prior to Kristallnacht, these Nazi policies had been primarily nonviolent. After Kristallnacht, conditions for German Jews grew increasingly worse. During World War II (1939-45), Hitler and the Nazis implemented their "Final Solution" to the "Jewish problem," and carried out the systematic murder of some 6 million European Jews in what came to be known as the Holocaust.

Kristallnacht | Events Leading Up to Kristallnacht

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Kristallnacht.aspx

Stefan Sirucek: Remembering Kristallnacht in Berlin: The Story of Hans Riess

Kristallnacht

Additional German (Hitler) Gun Control Information:


1. New York Times, Nov. 9, 1938, 24.

2. Gerald Schawb, The Day the Holocaust Began (New York: Praeger, 1990), 22.

3. New York Times, Nov. 11, 1938, 1, 4.

4. The Holocaust, Vol. 3, The Crystal Night Pogrom, John Mendelsohn, ed. (New York: Garland, 1982), 183-84.

5. Die Deutsche Wochenschau, No. 506, 15 May 1940, UfA, Ton-Woche.

6. Major H. von Dach, Total Resistance (Boulder: Paladin Press, 1965), 169. Earlier published as Dach, Der Totale Widerstand (Biel: SUOV, 2nd ed., 1958).

7. New York Times, July 2, 1940, 20.

8. New York Times, Jan. 4, 1941, 7.

9. 87 CONG.REC., 77th Cong., 1st Sess., 6778 (Aug. 5, 1941).

10. Id. at 7102 (Aug. 13, 1941).

11. Property Requisition Act, P.L. 274, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., Ch. 445, 55 Stat., pt. 1, 742 (Oct. 16, 1941). See. Halbrook, "Congress Interprets the Second Amendment," 62 Tennessee Law Review 597, 618-31 (Spring 1995).

12. Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews (New York: Homes and Meir, 1985), 341, 318, 297.

13. Yitzhak Arad et al. eds., The Einsatzgruppen Reports (New York: Holocaust Library, 1989), ii.

14. Id. at 233, 306, 257-58, 352-53, 368.

15. Reichsgesetzblatt, I, 759 (4 Dec. 1941).

16. "The Nazi Deadline," American Rifleman, February 1942, at 7.

17. American Rifleman, Nov. 1940.

18. E.g., Report of the Adjutant General for 1945, at 23-24 (Richmond, Va., 1946); U.S. Home Defense Forces Study 58-59 (Office of Ass't Sec. of Defense 1981).

19. See Rotem (Kazik), Simha, Memoirs of a Warsaw Ghetto Fighter, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 118-19; David I. Caplan, "Weapons Control Laws: Gateways to Victim Oppression and Genocide," in To Be a Victim: Encounters with Crime and Injustice, eds. Diane Sank and David I. Caplan (New York: Plenum Press, 1991), 310.

20. Letter of Pres. Truman to C.B. Lister, NRA Sec.-Treas., Nov. 14, 1945.

 

[M1911]

Nazis, as useful as they are need not be your trump card. We can make cogent arguments against gun control with them or Joey Stalin.

I have not made any mention of Hitler or Stalin, so please don't imply that I did.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting. The purpose of it is clear - to provide citizens with ability to defend themselves and the nation, from both external and internal enemies. The authors of the Bill of Rights had recent experience with the overthrow of a tyrannical government and wanted to assure that the citizenry were never disarmed, so that the final option would always be available.

You can argue the wisdom of the 2nd Amendment. You can argue that it should be repealed. But the reasoning for its inclusion in the Bill of Rights is well documented.

The reasons why some gun owners bring up various tyrants are pretty self-evident - the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent just that sort of tyranny. I don't use such comparisons most anti-gun proponents don't understand or don't accept the rational behind the 2nd Amendment in the first place and because such comparisons usually produce more heat than light.