‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 > 
 
   
 

Mass Shooting in America

 
no_profundia
 
Avatar
 
 
no_profundia
Total Posts:  541
Joined  14-07-2016
 
 
 
09 September 2019 20:41
 

Billy, I think you’re looking at things through an overly apocalyptic lens that sees big government controlled by leftists as the main enemy.

Bingo. After reading through this thread I realize I was wrong to agree with Billy that “political elites are always trying to gain control” because I don’t agree with what I now think Billy meant by it or his general understanding of the tendencies of history.

It seems to me Billy thinks that there is this constant force in history, like a constantly rising tide, that is always trying to swamp the island of freedom we have won for ourselves, and that always needs to be resisted with violence (or the threat of violence). I disagree with this picture for three reasons (probably more but I am going to list three).

First, I suspect Billy considers most of the policies proposed by the left to be part of this rising tide while I would not. Second, I suspect that as a complex system (or series of complex systems) history behaves like other complex systems and enters steady states or equilibria that are self-sustaining to a certain degree. So I don’t think there is some omnipresent force in every steady state that is trying to undermine it or any inherent tendency that works against freedom or democracy or anything else that we currently value.

Third, while equilibria are certainly going to be fragile the notion that we can maintain an equilibrium through force of arms I think is rarely going to be true. Once it gets to the point where citizens are taking up arms against their own military the equilibrium is already broken and I think it is going to be totally unpredictable what comes out the other side. The Afghans did manage to kick out three major powers but then fell into chaos and eventually settled into a new steady state with the Taliban in charge until the equilibrium was broken by an outside force again.

We should be trying to do all we can to remain in the basin of relative freedom and prosperity we currently exist in by upholding norms, defending institutions, and so on, but I think the idea that we will be able to drive the historical process back into our current steady state, after it has been driven out of it by the collapse of those norms and institutions, is not that realistic. I don’t think any of the historical examples that Billy has given are really examples of that.

Also, I think this question is a red herring since a total ban on private gun ownership is not really being seriously debated in the US. The laws that are currently being proposed in the hopes of reducing gun violence would still allow private citizens to own guns and cast themselves as Rambo, taking on the bloated leftist Leviathan hell bent on robbing us of our civil liberties, in their own personal fantasies.

 
 
no_profundia
 
Avatar
 
 
no_profundia
Total Posts:  541
Joined  14-07-2016
 
 
 
09 September 2019 20:45
 

if you think the officials in our government don’t even contemplate ‘shredding up the Constitution’ and ‘stomping on the rights of Americans’ through something akin to marshal law because of the Second Amendment, as opposed to all-but insurmountable cultural and political norms rooted in American identity…well, if you believe that then you understand nothing about American politics.

no comparison to what might happen in the US—or if it is, then like I said, this involvement of foreign governments in a military or paramilitary conflict on our own soil means a far worse ship has sailed than armed contests over our “civil rights.”

These two quotes encapsulate what I was trying to get at in my post in a clearer way than I was able to articulate. I was struggling putting what I was trying to say into words but this was it.

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9599
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
09 September 2019 23:15
 
no_profundia - 09 September 2019 08:45 PM

if you think the officials in our government don’t even contemplate ‘shredding up the Constitution’ and ‘stomping on the rights of Americans’ through something akin to marshal law because of the Second Amendment, as opposed to all-but insurmountable cultural and political norms rooted in American identity…well, if you believe that then you understand nothing about American politics.

no comparison to what might happen in the US—or if it is, then like I said, this involvement of foreign governments in a military or paramilitary conflict on our own soil means a far worse ship has sailed than armed contests over our “civil rights.”

These two quotes encapsulate what I was trying to get at in my post in a clearer way than I was able to articulate. I was struggling putting what I was trying to say into words but this was it.

Agreed.  If the U.S. government sent out its military to attack its citizens, the last thing on everyone’s mind would be preserving the Bill of Rights. 

The result of current gun policy is a citizenry which attacks itself and sows distrust in each other and the country’s institutions designed to protect us from ourselves, while the nefarious wing of the ruling elite fan the flames of discontent to distract the populace from noticing the elite is looting the national treasury, while letting Billy think keeping his guns and dreams of worst-case scenarios is more important.  So, shoot up all the schools, churches, shopping malls, etc. you want, because the likes of Billy prefer that to losing the right to guns to defend themselves long after their other civil rights are gone. 

The gun rights people will lift their gun to defend only the 2nd Amendment.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  491
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
10 September 2019 07:12
 
Billy Shears - 08 September 2019 03:24 PM

Not to invoke Godwin’s law, but I would also remind you that in 1900, Germany was the most technologically, politically, socially, and culturally developed nation on the planet.  Before that century was even half over, it was a murder machine the like of which had never been seen in human history.  And one of the things Germany did along the way was disarm its populace—and actually, strict gun control was enacted during the Weimar Republic, before the Nazis came to power (the Reichsgesetz über Schusswaffen und Munition (Reich law on firearms and ammunition), enacted on 12 April 1928).  I’m sure the politicians who passed that law were well-meaning people who simply didn’t think citizens’ ability to own arms should be uncontrolled or loosely controlled—just like proponents of gun control today.  But they sure made life easier for the tyrant when he came along.  You never know what the future will bring.

As a historian who has studied Nazi Germany, your claims about Nazi Germany are myths perpetuated by gun rights activists.  I mean.. you got the date right, but you’ve completely failed to comprehend anything about the subject matter.

The 1928 law actually LOOSENED gun laws.  In order to comply with the Treaty of Versailles, Germany had actually banned gun ownership in 1919.  The 1928 law made the ownership of guns legal, but instituted a licensing and registration system that was two-fold, you had to have one license to own a gun, and another to carry and use it.

Of course, you completely ignored the 1938 German Weapons Act (a law from when the Nazi’s were in power).  The 1938 law completely deregulated long guns.  It lowered the minimum age from 20 to 18, and permits (only handguns now required permits) lasted 3 years (under the 1928 law they lasted 1 year).  People who held hunting permits, government workers, and anyone with a Nazi party affiliation were subject to no restrictions (ie, they could own/carry handguns freely).  The law made only one change to the manufacture of guns: companies even partly owned by Jews would no longer receive permits to manufacture guns.

A separate law was passed that specifically targeted Jews.  While guns could be and were seized by police, the record keeping on who owned guns was so incomplete that many Jews who had owned guns prior to 1938 often still possessed them.

Any comparison to “Nazi gun control” is only valid if the law in question specifically calls out subgroups of the population as being ineligible to own guns.  Otherwise, any claim that the Nazi’s passed restrictive gun control legislation is false.

Waffengesetz (1938)

Edit: to add, overall the issue of guns was more about politics than actual firearms.  In some ways, the Nazi’s actually used the proffer of gun ownership as inducement to join the party.  For example, an SA officer wrote this as a warning to others in Bavaria in ‘33:

Die Verbände der nationalen Erhebung, SA, SS und Stahlhelm geben jedem unbescholtenen
deutschen Manne Gelegenheit in ihren Reihen mitzukämpfen. Wer daher nicht einem der genannten
Verbände angehört und trotzdem seine Waffe unberechtigt behält oder gar versteckt, muss als Feind
der nationalen Regierung betrachtet werden und wird rücksichtslos mit der vollen Schärfe zur
Verantwortung gezogen.

Without doing a full translation, it basically says that those who join the SA, SS and Stalhhelm are fighting to defend Germany, and therefore are honorable men.  Any man who doesn’t join their fight in defense of Germany will be considered an enemy if he hides his weapons from them. Source in German.

Analogies to Nazi firearm legislation and practice are only accurate if we are examining a situation where guns are being restricted along party lines.  A much closer analogy would be voter ID laws that allow a gun license as usable ID for voting.

[ Edited: 10 September 2019 07:58 by Garret]
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  919
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
10 September 2019 07:17
 
no_profundia - 09 September 2019 08:45 PM

if you think the officials in our government don’t even contemplate ‘shredding up the Constitution’ and ‘stomping on the rights of Americans’ through something akin to marshal law because of the Second Amendment, as opposed to all-but insurmountable cultural and political norms rooted in American identity…well, if you believe that then you understand nothing about American politics.

no comparison to what might happen in the US—or if it is, then like I said, this involvement of foreign governments in a military or paramilitary conflict on our own soil means a far worse ship has sailed than armed contests over our “civil rights.”

These two quotes encapsulate what I was trying to get at in my post in a clearer way than I was able to articulate. I was struggling putting what I was trying to say into words but this was it.

Glad to be of service.  Thanks.

 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9599
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
10 September 2019 08:53
 
Garret - 10 September 2019 07:12 AM

As a historian who has studied Nazi Germany, your claims about Nazi Germany are myths perpetuated by gun rights activists.  I mean.. you got the date right, but you’ve completely failed to comprehend anything about the subject matter.

The 1928 law actually LOOSENED gun laws.  In order to comply with the Treaty of Versailles, Germany had actually banned gun ownership in 1919.  The 1928 law made the ownership of guns legal, but instituted a licensing and registration system that was two-fold, you had to have one license to own a gun, and another to carry and use it.

Thanks for this. I have been too lazy to research Nazi gun laws myself.  I suspect Billy blithely tossed this out with the mistaken impression that it tightened gun laws because it required registration.

I’ll wait for Billy’s response to your post.

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3322
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
10 September 2019 09:41
 
 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  491
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
10 September 2019 19:26
 
Skipshot - 10 September 2019 08:53 AM
Garret - 10 September 2019 07:12 AM

As a historian who has studied Nazi Germany, your claims about Nazi Germany are myths perpetuated by gun rights activists.  I mean.. you got the date right, but you’ve completely failed to comprehend anything about the subject matter.

The 1928 law actually LOOSENED gun laws.  In order to comply with the Treaty of Versailles, Germany had actually banned gun ownership in 1919.  The 1928 law made the ownership of guns legal, but instituted a licensing and registration system that was two-fold, you had to have one license to own a gun, and another to carry and use it.

Thanks for this. I have been too lazy to research Nazi gun laws myself.  I suspect Billy blithely tossed this out with the mistaken impression that it tightened gun laws because it required registration.

I’ll wait for Billy’s response to your post.

Here’s a pretty good video that goes into a decent amount of detail about Nazi’s and guns.

He’s also really good about providing his sources, which is something I like.

 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9599
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
11 September 2019 07:29
 

Thanks for the video, Garret.  The viewers’ comments were helpful, too.  An interesting point made by the vid is that an armed minority using guns to protect themselves from a hostile majority plays into the hands of the majority’s cause.  For example, if homosexuals were to defend their civil rights by organizing an armed resistance they would quickly be declared a violent threat to the state and their argument for their civil rights would be forgotten, as demonstrated by the Black panthers in 1967 when a group of armed negroes showed up unannounced at the California state capitol during a legislative session to protect their right to bear arms to protect the black community from police brutality in Oakland.  The Panthers’ stunt convinced the NRA and lawmakers to ban open-carry in California,

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-ban/

It has been said that the best way to defeat the NRA is for every black person in the U.S. to sign up as a member of the NRA.

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  919
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
12 September 2019 03:02
 

I hope I speak for more than one person here when I say I want Mr. Shears back in this discussion.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15839
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
12 September 2019 08:26
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 12 September 2019 03:02 AM

I hope I speak for more than one person here when I say I want Mr. Shears back in this discussion.

Indeed. I haven’t been contributing much to the goings on, but he brings much to the table.

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8627
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
12 September 2019 12:16
 
Skipshot - 11 September 2019 07:29 AM

Thanks for the video, Garret.  The viewers’ comments were helpful, too.  An interesting point made by the vid is that an armed minority using guns to protect themselves from a hostile majority plays into the hands of the majority’s cause.  For example, if homosexuals were to defend their civil rights by organizing an armed resistance they would quickly be declared a violent threat to the state and their argument for their civil rights would be forgotten, as demonstrated by the Black panthers in 1967 when a group of armed negroes showed up unannounced at the California state capitol during a legislative session to protect their right to bear arms to protect the black community from police brutality in Oakland.  The Panthers’ stunt convinced the NRA and lawmakers to ban open-carry in California,

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-ban/

It has been said that the best way to defeat the NRA is for every black person in the U.S. to sign up as a member of the NRA.

Is it generally recognized that the people who ratified the Second Amendment were white supremacists?  Virginia had about 300,000 slaves in 1790.  Not even allowed guns for hunting rabbits?

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/us-census-1790/

[ Edited: 12 September 2019 12:39 by unsmoked]
 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
12 September 2019 14:33
 
unsmoked - 12 September 2019 12:16 PM
Skipshot - 11 September 2019 07:29 AM

Thanks for the video, Garret.  The viewers’ comments were helpful, too.  An interesting point made by the vid is that an armed minority using guns to protect themselves from a hostile majority plays into the hands of the majority’s cause.  For example, if homosexuals were to defend their civil rights by organizing an armed resistance they would quickly be declared a violent threat to the state and their argument for their civil rights would be forgotten, as demonstrated by the Black panthers in 1967 when a group of armed negroes showed up unannounced at the California state capitol during a legislative session to protect their right to bear arms to protect the black community from police brutality in Oakland.  The Panthers’ stunt convinced the NRA and lawmakers to ban open-carry in California,

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-ban/

It has been said that the best way to defeat the NRA is for every black person in the U.S. to sign up as a member of the NRA.

Is it generally recognized that the people who ratified the Second Amendment were white supremacists?  Virginia had about 300,000 slaves in 1790.  Not even allowed guns for hunting rabbits?

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/us-census-1790/

It was ratified by non-slave holding states, as well. Bernie Sanders supports the Second Amendment, just not the extreme version of it pushed by the NRA, who would allow individuals to carry hand-held nuclear devices, if such existed.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15839
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
12 September 2019 17:07
 
EN - 12 September 2019 02:33 PM
unsmoked - 12 September 2019 12:16 PM
Skipshot - 11 September 2019 07:29 AM

Thanks for the video, Garret.  The viewers’ comments were helpful, too.  An interesting point made by the vid is that an armed minority using guns to protect themselves from a hostile majority plays into the hands of the majority’s cause.  For example, if homosexuals were to defend their civil rights by organizing an armed resistance they would quickly be declared a violent threat to the state and their argument for their civil rights would be forgotten, as demonstrated by the Black panthers in 1967 when a group of armed negroes showed up unannounced at the California state capitol during a legislative session to protect their right to bear arms to protect the black community from police brutality in Oakland.  The Panthers’ stunt convinced the NRA and lawmakers to ban open-carry in California,

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-ban/

It has been said that the best way to defeat the NRA is for every black person in the U.S. to sign up as a member of the NRA.

Is it generally recognized that the people who ratified the Second Amendment were white supremacists?  Virginia had about 300,000 slaves in 1790.  Not even allowed guns for hunting rabbits?

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/us-census-1790/

It was ratified by non-slave holding states, as well. Bernie Sanders supports the Second Amendment, just not the extreme version of it pushed by the NRA, who would allow individuals to carry hand-held nuclear devices, if such existed.

Can you get me one of those?

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
12 September 2019 17:16
 
burt - 12 September 2019 05:07 PM
EN - 12 September 2019 02:33 PM
unsmoked - 12 September 2019 12:16 PM
Skipshot - 11 September 2019 07:29 AM

Thanks for the video, Garret.  The viewers’ comments were helpful, too.  An interesting point made by the vid is that an armed minority using guns to protect themselves from a hostile majority plays into the hands of the majority’s cause.  For example, if homosexuals were to defend their civil rights by organizing an armed resistance they would quickly be declared a violent threat to the state and their argument for their civil rights would be forgotten, as demonstrated by the Black panthers in 1967 when a group of armed negroes showed up unannounced at the California state capitol during a legislative session to protect their right to bear arms to protect the black community from police brutality in Oakland.  The Panthers’ stunt convinced the NRA and lawmakers to ban open-carry in California,

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-ban/

It has been said that the best way to defeat the NRA is for every black person in the U.S. to sign up as a member of the NRA.

Is it generally recognized that the people who ratified the Second Amendment were white supremacists?  Virginia had about 300,000 slaves in 1790.  Not even allowed guns for hunting rabbits?

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/us-census-1790/

It was ratified by non-slave holding states, as well. Bernie Sanders supports the Second Amendment, just not the extreme version of it pushed by the NRA, who would allow individuals to carry hand-held nuclear devices, if such existed.

Can you get me one of those?

You will have to pass my extensive background check, and having read all your posts, I don’t think you can.

 
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >