Machine gun shoot

[M/V_Bear_II]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

M/V....Which ones?? Since you teach history,you might remember that Hitler confiscated weapons before murdering 7 million Jews.
Are you sure you're not a politician instead of a teacher?I read your post and still don't know what you said.

Gun control was a part of German politics years before Hitler arrived on the scene. He did extend pre-Reich rules, but not until 1938 - after the introduction of other stringent anti-Jewish laws. Confiscation of weapons was certainly secondary to the confiscation of other rights. I am pretty confident that you would not have seen a mass uprising if there still were still guns - the population was simply too spread out & small, and they were pretty well cowed by the civil restraints in place.

A couple other points: 6 million Jews, of which roughly 250,000 lived in Germany before Hitler. The poster I was responding to implied plural countries or races. Is there another one, other than German Jews, who might have been saved by holding on to their guns more tightly?

Let me know what in my post confused you. I'd be happy to elaborate.

[Winnicandle]

Originally Posted by M/V_Bear_II

Is there another one, other than German Jews, who might have been saved by holding on to their guns more tightly?

I guess that was not a good enough example?



Its good enough for me.

[Mike M.]

Originally Posted by M/V_Bear_II

Is there another one, other than German Jews, who might have been saved by holding on to their guns more tightly?

Ottoman Empire, Soviet Union, China, Cambodia

[M/V_Bear_II]

Originally Posted by Winnicandle

I guess that was not a good enough example?



Its good enough for me.

You said there were *plural* examples. I was hoping you had more of them. And I think I showed that there were bigger issues present in Germany long before Hitler addressed gun control.

Or do you think that if the Weimar Republic had not had limited gun control, the Jews would have revolted when the 1935 Nuremberg Laws were announced? If so, then I guess I should drop the argument on that one.

Originally Posted by Mike M.

Ottoman Empire, Soviet Union, China, Cambodia

China had a full-on civil war. I don't think they were "giving up their guns".

Cambodia, I don't know enough about to address. But if you can give me any evidence that gun control contributed to the genocide, I'll give it to you.

The Soviet Union's gun control coincided with Stalinist repression. I'm still not convinced that without it, the purges would have been avoided, but I'll give it to you.

And I assume you mean the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. This is a great example, and I thank you for bringing it up, because I had not considered it. That was gun control legislation aimed at a specific ethnic group, which later led to genocide. This is an excellent piece of evidence, which is all I was looking for.

[Cobalt 25]

Mike M.,

When I mentioned state rep I was referring to the term Boater used when he said Obama proposed banning all guns.

The link you posted contains much of the info I referenced from Snopes, but it was presented by a biased source. ontheissues.org leans way right. I believe most people would recognize, and respect, Snopes for being non-biased.

Peter

[fatlazyless]

For what it's worth, there's a big gun manufactorer not too far from the Lakes Region. Heading over towards Lebanon and Enfield, NH, somewhere, there's a big factory building called 'Pine Tree Castings' on its' little sign, and it is, I believe, the Sturm Ruger company. The state road goes right past the factory entrance. Just next door, another place sells very nice wool blanket, factory seconds.

Could be worth the drive for shopping some factory second, wool blankets and a factory second, machine gun, at a low New Hampshire factory price, of course!.

Most likely, there is absolutely no way that Sturm Ruger, a large gun maker, will follow the trails of Annalee Dolls of Meredith, or L C Packard woolen mill of Ashland, and be bought out and get moved to China.

It seems more likely that China could be moving some of its' factories, offshore here to New Hampshire, to utilize our low-pay, New Hampshire work force.

[Mike M.]

Originally Posted by Cobalt 25

The link you posted contains much of the info I referenced from Snopes, but it was presented by a biased source. ontheissues.org leans way right.

Peter,

I agree, the link I posted did contain a lot of the same information you referenced from 'snopes.' I wasn't challenging the legitimacy of snopes, I was just posting a source that did not have a title "Urban Legends Reference Pages."

I would disagree that ontheissues.org is leaning way right, if you go to the main page you'll see ALL of the candidates listed with links to quotes.

Originally Posted by Cobalt 25

I believe most people would recognize, and respect, Snopes for being non-biased.

That is a very broad generalization.

I picked a site that referenced every position. The majority of the page you linked is about an Obama myth.

If you believe something is bias you can check out youtube. There is a very high probability that you will be able to pull up the clip from the debate that is being referenced.

Originally Posted by Cobalt 25

Can you cite a reference to your accusation that Obama sponsored legislation as a state rep that would have banned all guns?

Modifying the 2nd amendment is a slippery slope.

I had no intentions of debating McCain or Obama's position on guns. I was simply putting up two links that would present some information on the subject.

Here is a link to the debate on April 16th that both of our sources are referencing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_LXb0ZPws

At :30 Obama states:

"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

And I think that it is going to be important for us to reconcile what are two realities in this country.

There's the reality of gun ownership and the tradition of gun ownership that's passed on from generation to generation. You know, when you listen to people who have hunted, and they talk about the fact that they went hunting with their fathers or their mothers, then that is something that is deeply important to them and, culturally, they care about deeply.

But you also have the reality of what's happening here in Philadelphia and what's happening in Chicago."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Democ...4670271&page=4

He is comparing gun rights to zoning laws. Zoning laws are in place to protect the property rights of individuals. They protect residential neighborhoods from having a skyscraper built next door. How would the government restricting my neighbor from purchasing a gun protect my rights in the same way zoning laws protect my property?

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. At the time the constitution was constructed hunting was a must for most people that wanted to eat. The 2nd amendment is not entirely about protecting your property or your family. At that specific time period it is assumed you would protect both if they were threatened. The issue that almost all presidential candidates do not address is the fact the 2nd amendment is really protection from an oppressive government. The constitution does not grant us rights, it restrains the government from infringing on our inalienable rights as human beings. The 2nd amendment guarantees the people the ability to protect themselves, when you remove that protection all of our other rights are then in jeopardy. It is a check and balance.

The reality is gun laws only disarm law abiding citizens. People who use guns for violent crimes would not be stopped by the toughest gun laws.

At 1:35 Obama states "No, My writing was not on that particular questionnaire." According to the article from snopes you posted, it links to an AP story that Obama did in fact say he supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/...223News017.asp

"That 1996 questionnaire asked whether he supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. The campaign’s answer was straightforward: "Yes." Eight years later, he said on another questionnaire that "a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable," but reasonable restrictions should be imposed."

The article goes on to say:

“IVI-IPO officials said it’s inconceivable Obama would have let a staffer turn in a questionnaire with incorrect answers. The group interviewed Obama in person about his answers before endorsing him in that 1996 legislative race, and he didn’t suggest then, or anytime since, that the questionnaire needed to be corrected, they said.”

“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.”

I just want to bring up something that transcends party lines. Why did the third party candidates for president come together and agree on 4 critical problems we need to address as Americans?

Foreign Policy, Privacy, The National Debt, The Federal Reserve

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=457

Both McCain and Obama fundamentally agree on all four of these subjects:

Foreign policy - Both support preemptive strikes. Both want to keep our troops stationed all around the world. With either candidate we will have our troops fighting in some foreign country we have not declared war on.
Privacy - Both support the patriot act.
National Debt - Both are going to increase it with their policies (some more than others)
The Federal Reserve - Both support the federal reserve system.

At the most pivotal moment in recent history the candidate for 'change' will not address four issues that four respected politicians have raised. Why?