Democrats Bring Bill To Prohibit Armed Citizen Militias

The Nazis stripped the Jews of German citizenship in 1933.

"If you read the 1938 Nazi gun laws closely and compare them to earlier 1928 Weimar gun legislation – as a straightforward exercise of statutory interpretation – several conclusions become clear. First, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. Third, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms."


"The difficult question is how to characterize the Nazi treatment of the Jewish population for purposes of evaluating Hitler's position on gun control. Truth is, the question itself is absurd. The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population. Their treatment of Jews is, in this sense, orthogonal to their gun-control views. Nevertheless, if forced to take a position, it seems that the Nazis aspired to a certain relaxation of gun registration laws for the "law-abiding German citizen" – for those who were not, in their minds, "enemies of the National Socialist state," in other words, Jews, Communists, etc."
And they disarmed the German Jews. After they registered their firearms. Just like democrats today they are the nazis of yesterday.
 
You want to ensure anyone attacking schools are unopposed to maximize the body count for effect on the evening news, racist vermin.

Fun fact, school shooters don't follow your laws, jackass
Are you retarded? You and your fat assed militia buddies aren't in school.

Some days' I'm shocked that there isn't somebody following you kids around reminding you "breath in,,, Breath out..." over an over all day long.

Oh and:

dogwhistle.jpg
 
Uh...organized militias are already illegal in all 50 states. This just looks like putting some teeth with a bill that will actually enforce what is already supposed to be illegal....and don't EVER call a National Guard reservist a member of a "militia".
They take great offense to that.

That's impossible.
The Founders ONLY wanted militias.
They did not trust standing mercenary forces that worked for pay.
They only wanted volunteer groups of citizens.
Which is a militia.
And if you made private militias illegal, that would the National Guard illegal as well as the rest of the armed forces.
Government is NOT the source of any legal authority, we are.
 
The Nazis stripped the Jews of German citizenship in 1933.
Not so good.
..... Hitler stripped the Jews of citizenship and then disarmed them. He didn't disarm German citizens.
Not so good.
... they disarmed the German Jews. After they registered their firearms.
OK ......
Just like democrats today they are the nazis of yesterday.
So, are you saying that the American democrats are today revoking American citizenship for Jews and disarming only them? I smell a lie. :45:
 
Gun control. Not gun grabbing. Again, I own guns and NO ONE has even made a tacit threat of taking them.
The 2A quite specifically says "well-regulated militia". Since unorganized militias are not regulated, they are constitutionally illegal.
Each state however, has it's own rules.

Wrong.
The meaning of the word "regulated" by the Founders was "well functioning", "regular", as in a well regulated clock.
So in the 2nd amendment, they only mean that any federal gun control would be shooting ourselves in the foot, because then the general population would not be familiar enough with firearms to be able to repel an invasion.

And anyone who used the "well regulated" phrase to claim the rest is dependent upon that phrase, is guilty of a logical fallacy.
When one rational is listed, that does not mean it is the only one.

This is several logical fallacies, and here is one:
{...

Post hoc (false cause)​

The post hoc fallacy assumes that because B comes after A, A caused B. It gets its name from the Latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", which translates as "after this, therefore because of this".

Sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later—for example, if one registers for a class and their name later appears on the roll, it's true that the first event caused the one that came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time are not really related as cause and event. That is, temporal correlation does not necessarily entail causation. For example, if one eats a sandwich and then gets food poisoning, that does not necessarily mean the sandwich caused the food poisoning. Something else eaten earlier might have caused the food poisoning.
...}
 
Not so good.

Not so good.

OK ......

So, are you saying that the American democrats are today revoking American citizenship for Jews and disarming only them? I smell a lie. :45:

No, the idea is that when governments become corrupt, they will attack groups they do not like, so they first will illegally ensure they are disarmed and helpless.

The government is not supposed to be a source of any authority, we are instead.
So when the government starts to disarm us and keep its own arms, then we are headed for trouble. That is inherently illegal.
 
The meaning of the word "regulated" by the Founders was "well functioning", "regular", as in a well regulated clock.
I feel for you but I've read several books by Franz Kafka and a couple by George Orwell so I know how this ends. I predict an ulcer in your future. :(
 
The evidence disagrees with you.

What "evidence"?
The only source of legal authority is the inherent rights of each individual.
Then we hire police and government to defend our rights for us, so the government is only working out the borrowed authority we delegate to them.
Then have no authority on their own in a republic.
Government is only a source of authority in a dictatorship.
 
I feel for you but I've read several books by Franz Kafka and a couple by George Orwell so I know how this ends. I predict an ulcer in your future.
Democracy exists only where those in power agree to implement it. So, where is it?

The point of a republic is to ensure the people are more powerful than the government.
That is why gun control is inherently illegal.
Since individuals are the source of all legal authority in a republic, then if there are laws to disarm average people, then there is no way for those average people to authorize police or military to be armed.
The population can only authorize what they themselves have authority to do.
 
Are you retarded? You and your fat assed militia buddies aren't in school.

Some days' I'm shocked that there isn't somebody following you kids around reminding you "breath in,,, Breath out..." over an over all day long.

Oh and:

View attachment 890013

Wrong.
Obviously the solution to school shooting is to have several staff, like teachers and janitors, who are armed.
That is what the PTA insisted on during my senior year in high school, after 2 students were killed in knife fights. (West Side Story was popular then.)
 
....... So, are you saying that the American democrats are today revoking American citizenship for Jews and disarming only them? I smell a lie. :45:
"No" about what?
... the idea is that when governments become corrupt ...
The US government has been corrupt since at least the end of WW II.
... they will attack groups they do not like, so they first will illegally ensure they are disarmed and helpless.
Duh. Tell me something I don't already know. Just off the top of my head let us recall that Obama said, "Trump is not going to be your president" .... and take it from there, including all of this impeachment frenzy.
The government is not supposed to be a source of any authority ...
"... is not supposed to be ...". I'm trying to decide if you are stupid (naw, clearly not "stupid") or naïve. Yeah, that's the word, naïve.

... we are instead.
And your point is ..... ?
So when the government starts to disarm us and keep its own arms, then we are headed for trouble.
Now you're being "stupid".
That is inherently illegal.
"Inherent" and "Illegal"? That makes no sense. Are you admitting that you are both naïve and stupid? Personally, I don't believe that but you are giving evidence in that direction.
 
Government is only a source of authority in a dictatorship.
And that is what you've got (a dictatorship) but you are too absorbed, keeping your head down in a "duck & cover" maneuver to be able to see it :45: The likes of Bush & Biden dupes pander to every whim of the Deep State/Military-Industrial Complex. The "authority" you speak of is a rubber stamp. That's all it is.
 

Forum List

Back
Top