Elementary school shooting gun control pissing contest

[Razgovory]

Ed don't buy oil for his gun.

[Josquius]

How many Jews do you think owned guns in late 1930's Germany?

That falls under Jew control policies, not gun control policies. Jews not being allowed guns was a pretty "well duh" rule along with them not being allowed a lot of other, much more significant, stuff.
As far as gun control is concerned the dictatorial Nazis slackened it heavily from democratic Weimar's super tight controls.

[Razgovory]

Mao is often brought up, but I thought that large citizen militias were kinda his thing.

[derspiess]

How many Jews do you think owned guns in late 1930's Germany?

That falls under Jew control policies, not gun control policies. Jews not being allowed guns was a pretty "well duh" rule along with them not being allowed a lot of other, much more significant, stuff.
As far as gun control is concerned the dictatorial Nazis slackened it heavily from democratic Weimar's super tight controls.

Incorrect.  Weimar gun control was strict until 1928, when it was loosened up a bit.  Then in the Nazi era it was a mixed bag-- it was slackened in some respects but made more strict in others.  If you were a Nazi party member you faced practically no restrictions.  At the other end of the spectrum Jews were totally forbidden from owning guns.  If neither of these applied to you, you had to positively demonstrate your trustworthiness and need for a firearm.

[Razgovory]

You mean like a background check?  So they are like our laws.  The Nazis also completely deregulated long arms.  They wanted an armed populace.  It's hard to deny that the Germans liberalized gun ownership.  People do, but they often use false quotes.

[derspiess]

You mean like a background check?  So they are like our laws.  The Nazis also completely deregulated long arms.  They wanted an armed populace.  It's hard to deny that the Germans liberalized gun ownership.  People do, but they often use false quotes.

I don't think it was the same kind of background check. For starters I think they focused on your political trustworthiness and secondly you had to demonstrate a need.

[Razgovory]

You mean like a background check?  So they are like our laws.  The Nazis also completely deregulated long arms.  They wanted an armed populace.  It's hard to deny that the Germans liberalized gun ownership.  People do, but they often use false quotes.

I don't think it was the same kind of background check. For starters I think they focused on your political trustworthiness and secondly you had to demonstrate a need.

Yeah, for handguns.  Not long arms.  They wanted armed citizens to prevent an army coup, Communist insurrection or enemy invasion.  In the case of enemy invasion they did arm nearly anyone they could, giving weapons to anyone to nearly everyone who could hold them and formed them into "Well regulated militias".  Of course this utterly failed to hold back the enemy.

Second, with regard to gun possession, the 1938 Nazi gun laws
represented a further liberalization of gun control regulations. In fact, most of
the changes in the law reflected a loosening of the regulations, not a tightening.
The Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, is patterned on the Law on Firearms
and Ammunition of April 12, 1928. The two laws have the same structure,
similar section headings, and broadly similar language.
Section IV of both statutes address the same topic with the same
header, "Acquisition, Carrying, Possession, and Importation of Firearms and
Ammunition."72 These are the provisions that deal with possession and
carrying of firearms. The first important revision in the 1938 law concerns the
scope of the gun control regulation regarding the need for an acquisition
permit: whereas the 1928 law regarding the acquisition or transfer of guns
applied to "firearms and ammunition,"73 which included any and all "weapons
from which a bullet or a load of pellets may be driven through a barrel, by

means of the development of an explosive gas or air pressure"74—i.e. rifles,
shotguns, handguns, etc.—the 1938 law applied only to "handguns."75 In other
words, the 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer
of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition.
The second set of revisions effectuate an enlargement of the exceptions
to the acquisition permit requirement. The 1938 law effectively extended the
number of groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit
requirement. Whereas the 1928 law exempted primarily "officials of the central
government, the states, as well as the German Railways Company,"76 "business
owners" dealing in guns,77 and holders of a "firearms carry permit,"78 the 1938
law included these exemptions, but extended them to include holders of
"annual hunting permits,"79 as well as a larger group of government workers
and Nazi party members.80 The effect of these changes meant that anyone with
an annual hunting permit did not need a permit for the acquisition or transfer
of any firearms, whether long guns or handguns. Moreover, an additional
provision in the 1938 law states that "a hunting license entitles the holder to
carry firearms and handguns,"81 suggesting that the hunting license also extends
an exemption for handgun carrying. Under the 1928 law, the hunting permit
only entitled its holder to acquire "handguns as noted on it"82 and to carry
handguns during the hunting activity.83

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/harcourt_fordham.pdf

[mongers]

You know, if German Jews had been some heavily armed militia amidst the rest of the population, then maybe one or two of the Nazi's criticism of them might have been understandable. 

As it was, whatever the German guns laws at the time, if the rest of the population is as armed or under-armed as you , it ain't gonna make a lot of difference; the government and the active/passive support of 95% of the population means the 5% are going to lose out in any oppression/genocide.

Hell in Rwanda were the split was government/75% vs a minority, they managed to outpace the nazis on a daily basis to eradicate many of that 25%, most of the neighbourly dirty work done with machetes.

[Razgovory]

One of the assumptions there is about dictatorships is that they are always unpopular and only hold on to power through brutality.  I don't think this is true.  In fact, a well armed citizenry may very well preserve a popular form of oppression.

[Neil]

What difference would armed Jews have made?  There were far more armed Germans than their would have been armed Jews.  Armed Southerners weren't able to preserve slavery either despite their insurrection, so fuck the Second Amendment.  This sort of discussion is pointless, and the crazy guy should be ashamed of himself.

[Razgovory]

What difference would armed Jews have made?  There were far more armed Germans than their would have been armed Jews.  Armed Southerners weren't able to preserve slavery either despite their insurrection, so fuck the Second Amendment.  This sort of discussion is pointless, and the crazy guy should be ashamed of himself.

Why should I be ashamed of myself?  And yeah, if the Second Amendment was meant to stop the Feds then it was miserable failure.

[Neil]

What difference would armed Jews have made?  There were far more armed Germans than their would have been armed Jews.  Armed Southerners weren't able to preserve slavery either despite their insurrection, so fuck the Second Amendment.  This sort of discussion is pointless, and the crazy guy should be ashamed of himself.

Why should I be ashamed of myself?  And yeah, if the Second Amendment was meant to stop the Feds then it was miserable failure.

I meant John Rocker, but I guess you could be ashamed too if you like.

[Berkut]

So you defend that NRA for standing up for civil rights, even though the only rights they care about are the rights to bear arms?

Well the NRA is pretty much by definition focused on the 2nd Amendment and gun rights.

Whereas the ACLU - which defends every single other  individual and civil right in the Constitution - they get a big fat zero on the Spicy Liberty Exam because they don't take any position on gun rights.

Why don't you just fess up and admit the patchouli turns you off.

I have, actually.  The fact that they are left-leaning is the reason I don't like them.

The fact that the right defines the ACLU as left leaning speaks to just how much they really give a shit about actual liberty.

[garbon]

Btw, did we ever talk about this:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gun-appreciation-day-leader-to-cnn-if-blacks-had-guns-they-never-would-have-been-slaves/

'Gun Appreciation Day' Leader To CNN: If Blacks Had Guns, They Never Would Have Been Slaves

Appearing on CNN this morning, "Gun Appreciation Day" chairman Larry Ward said that if blacks had been armed, there never would have been slavery in America.

Ward's group planned the appreciation day for the weekend of President Obama's second inauguration, and some critics have attacked the celebration for its proximity to Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

"I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country's founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history," Ward told CNN host Carol Costello.

Co-panelist Maria Roach of United for Change USA immediately took issue with Ward's claim, labeling it a "ridiculous" example of "theater" in the gun debate. She then went after "Gun Appreciation Day" as a whole, calling it a "power play" that ignores the victims of mass shootings and instead focuses solely on appreciating the weapons themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEfvuO5icKQ

[CountDeMoney]

Yes, I believe we've discussed how the gun nuts manage to dig themselves a deeper hole every time they open their mouths.