Open carry firearms.. Our 2nd amendment right!!

[germanguy]

Even if true, it will take a long time to catch up to the 6,000,000 that your leaders incinerated/gassed alive .

In our household we have numerous firearms. Our children and grandchildren come to visit and stay for weeks. There has never been a problem. So we should not be penalized because others use their weapons irresponsibly.

ze yankee.

Good eveniling Yank,

never said that you or someone else killed his grandchildren.

As said before, I do not see that responsible and law-abiding citizens form a problem in any form. It is the overall availability which is one, IMHO.

HUH?


Gun dealers have an absolute right to sell firearms. The government has no authority to decide who can or can not bear arms.

There was a sizeable resistance in nearly every occupied country and they used everything available to them to get rid of the Germans.

'If Only We Were Armed Before'

Back in the 1920s and 1930s, the forward-thinking German "Weimar" republic effectively banned firearms possession by just about anyone but the military, the government police, and the ruling "Junker" class, members of whom were allowed to keep their fancy hunting rifles.

Later, when millions of Jews were rounded up and sent to concentration camps including Auschwitz and Buchenwald to be exterminated – despite the fact that on some mornings the other prisoners were each given water and a piece of bread, while the Jewish prisoners were not allowed to either eat or drink – did the Jews kill anyone with a handgun in order to get some food or water to keep themselves or their loved ones from starving. No! They couldn't, because they had no handguns!

In contrast, look at the trouble that was caused when a few surviving Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were allowed to lay hands on a few handguns on April 19, 1943 ....Those Polish Jews used those handguns to kill Nazi-sympathizing Ukrainian guards and take away their rifles. Then, with this slight increase in armament, they were able to hold German Wehrmacht forces at bay for weeks, tying up units that were badly needed by Hitler on the Russian front.

Many, many times. Before Adolf Hitler came to power, there was a black market in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned to be law abiding, that they would never consider buying an unregistered gun. The German people really believed that only hoodlums own such guns. What fools we were. ...

Actually it is rather stupid what you say.

What I meant was, that the possession of a firearm was not a prerequisite of any resistance.
An armed jew was a nuisance, an organized and armed jew was a danger.
There were many examples of Jews resisting to the german army, Warzaw is only a very memorable example. Most of them joined Soviet partisans.
Still, you will need organization more than weapons. These you can steal from your killed oppressors at least. But using them in an organized way makes the difference.

But I suppose you have a very naive and simple view how any dictatorship works.
Do you really think the Nazis came to power or the Shoah happened because of the lack of personal handguns ? Things are a little more complicated than that.

Regards
ze germanguy

P.S.

 

[Contumacious]

Good eveniling Yank,

never said that you or someone else killed his grandchildren.

As said before, I do not see that responsible and law-abiding citizens form a problem in any form. It is the overall availability which is one, IMHO.

HUH?


Gun dealers have an absolute right to sell firearms. The government has no authority to decide who can or can not bear arms.

There was a sizeable resistance in nearly every occupied country and they used everything available to them to get rid of the Germans.

'If Only We Were Armed Before'

Back in the 1920s and 1930s, the forward-thinking German "Weimar" republic effectively banned firearms possession by just about anyone but the military, the government police, and the ruling "Junker" class, members of whom were allowed to keep their fancy hunting rifles.

Later, when millions of Jews were rounded up and sent to concentration camps including Auschwitz and Buchenwald to be exterminated – despite the fact that on some mornings the other prisoners were each given water and a piece of bread, while the Jewish prisoners were not allowed to either eat or drink – did the Jews kill anyone with a handgun in order to get some food or water to keep themselves or their loved ones from starving. No! They couldn't, because they had no handguns!

In contrast, look at the trouble that was caused when a few surviving Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were allowed to lay hands on a few handguns on April 19, 1943 ....Those Polish Jews used those handguns to kill Nazi-sympathizing Ukrainian guards and take away their rifles. Then, with this slight increase in armament, they were able to hold German Wehrmacht forces at bay for weeks, tying up units that were badly needed by Hitler on the Russian front.

Many, many times. Before Adolf Hitler came to power, there was a black market in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned to be law abiding, that they would never consider buying an unregistered gun. The German people really believed that only hoodlums own such guns. What fools we were. ...

What I meant was, that the possession of a firearm was not a prerequisite of any resistance.

HUH?

Of course it was. The Nazis were criminal thugs , the Jews had no rights they had to recognize, the government was a continuing criminal enterprise, so they needed fire power....ask the Afghans.

An armed jew was a nuisance, an organized and armed jew was a danger.

WTF, you are a Nazi, now I see why you have so much trouble "understanding" why the people need to be armed.

Auf Wiedersehen!

 

[The Rabbi]

Autobahn? So Germans are now a bunch of Walter Mitties, living out their aggressions in their Mercedes and Seats instead of planning world conquest?

Yep!
At least we think so.
BTW, who is Walter Mitties...

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pretty sad. One of the greatest empires in history reduced to bourgeoisie.

 

[germanguy]

HUH?


Gun dealers have an absolute right to sell firearms. The government has no authority to decide who can or can not bear arms.






'If Only We Were Armed Before'

Back in the 1920s and 1930s, the forward-thinking German "Weimar" republic effectively banned firearms possession by just about anyone but the military, the government police, and the ruling "Junker" class, members of whom were allowed to keep their fancy hunting rifles.

Later, when millions of Jews were rounded up and sent to concentration camps including Auschwitz and Buchenwald to be exterminated – despite the fact that on some mornings the other prisoners were each given water and a piece of bread, while the Jewish prisoners were not allowed to either eat or drink – did the Jews kill anyone with a handgun in order to get some food or water to keep themselves or their loved ones from starving. No! They couldn't, because they had no handguns!

In contrast, look at the trouble that was caused when a few surviving Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were allowed to lay hands on a few handguns on April 19, 1943 ....Those Polish Jews used those handguns to kill Nazi-sympathizing Ukrainian guards and take away their rifles. Then, with this slight increase in armament, they were able to hold German Wehrmacht forces at bay for weeks, tying up units that were badly needed by Hitler on the Russian front.

Many, many times. Before Adolf Hitler came to power, there was a black market in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned to be law abiding, that they would never consider buying an unregistered gun. The German people really believed that only hoodlums own such guns. What fools we were. ...

What I meant was, that the possession of a firearm was not a prerequisite of any resistance.

HUH?

Of course it was. The Nazis were criminal thugs , the Jews had no rights they had to recognize, the government was a continuing criminal enterprise, so they needed fire power....ask the Afghans.

An armed jew was a nuisance, an organized and armed jew was a danger.

WTF, you are a Nazi, now I see why you have so much trouble "understanding" why the people need to be armed.

Auf Wiedersehen!

Never ever dare to call me a Nazi ! If you can not counter what I have said with an argument, there is still no need for insults.
But when closer inspected, this insult is used as a possibility to defame me in order to avoid countering my argumentation.
Silly.

My point is:

Neither the Shoah or the rise of the Nazis to power was possible, because people were not armed. Things are far more complicated.

If you want to read something which explains how and what happened in the 1930s, read the book from Sebastian Haffner: Defying Hitler. It is an eyewitness account of someone who emigrated later on to Britain. And as it has only some 150 pages, it will not even strain your patience.

So makle yourself first familiar with the historical facts and then come back.

My next point is:

The number of guns in circulation on a national level influence the number of crimes done with the use of guns. They neither rise or lower the crime rate, they simply make things messier. You have a culture of gun ownership, connected with the idea of personal freedom. We have no culture of gun ownership and do not connect personal freedom with the ownership of a gun.


regards
ze germanguy

 

[germanguy]

Autobahn? So Germans are now a bunch of Walter Mitties, living out their aggressions in their Mercedes and Seats instead of planning world conquest?

Yep!
At least we think so.
BTW, who is Walter Mitties...

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pretty sad. One of the greatest empires in history reduced to bourgeoisie.

Got your point now.

Well, as it took two times the combined strength of the world powers to beat Germany, I personally think we will skip Try No. 3 and concentrate upon the well-being of our citizens. And we have found out, that being surrounded by friends and allies is far more productive than the opposite.

And what is so bad about being bourgeois ? I like it.
Building an empire is mostly a costly idea, so we skipped that and concentrated on cars instead.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8[/ame]

But back to the Autobahn:

To install a speed-limit here is nearly as furiously countered as any idea to ban firearms in your country. The respective lobbyists used nearly the same rhetoric: It is not right to ban rights of a free citizen.
So, as we are killing actually more people in car accidents than by use of firearms, it still might be a good idea to limit this freedom. But it will not happen. We are "car-crazy".

regards
ze germanguy

 

[Diuretic]

Politics is a little like the Autobahn - more hazardous the closer you get to the centre.

 

[germanguy]

Second that,

and on the left is better than keeping on the right...

regards
ze germanguy

 

[JD_2B]

The number of guns in circulation on a national level influence the number of crimes done with the use of guns. They neither rise or lower the crime rate, they simply make things messier. You have a culture of gun ownership, connected with the idea of personal freedom. We have no culture of gun ownership and do not connect personal freedom with the ownership of a gun.


regards
ze germanguy

Absolutely not true at all.

The instance of violence and gun violence has far more to do with the varying levels of income in a society than any other factor, whatsoever.

If everyone in the country owned a gun and was middle income, there will be a low amount of violence, including gun violence.
If everyone was rich in a country, and owned a gun, there will also be a low amount of violence, including gun violence.
And if everyone in a country is poor, and owned guns, there would still be a low amount of violence, and gun violence.

It does not freaking MATTER how many people have weapons. EVERYONE has access to weapons.. I can make a Taser out of a disposable camera and a paper clip, for crying out loud.. I have heard of people getting stabbed with a screwdriver. People get SMOTHERED to death with pillows, or bludgeoned with (most recently in my neighborhood) a table leg, or baseball bat, hammer- name your blunt instrument.

We don't need guns to cause violence or deaths.. Guns just expedite the process of killing someone, and cause less bloodshed and effort, so that a person can make a kill with very little effort.

Again, GUNS do not kill people- People kill people.

 

[Contumacious]

What I meant was, that the possession of a firearm was not a prerequisite of any resistance.

HUH?

Of course it was. The Nazis were criminal thugs , the Jews had no rights they had to recognize, the government was a continuing criminal enterprise, so they needed fire power....ask the Afghans.

An armed jew was a nuisance, an organized and armed jew was a danger.

WTF, you are a Nazi, now I see why you have so much trouble "understanding" why the people need to be armed.

Auf Wiedersehen!

Never ever dare to call me a Nazi ! If you can not counter what I have said with an argument, there is still no need for insults.
But when closer inspected, this insult is used as a possibility to defame me in order to avoid countering my argumentation.
Silly.

My point is:

Neither the Shoah or the rise of the Nazis to power was possible, because people were not armed. Things are far more complicated.

If you want to read something which explains how and what happened in the 1930s, read the book from Sebastian Haffner: Defying Hitler. It is an eyewitness account of someone who emigrated later on to Britain. And as it has only some 150 pages, it will not even strain your patience.

So makle yourself first familiar with the historical facts and then come back.

My next point is:

The number of guns in circulation on a national level influence the number of crimes done with the use of guns. They neither rise or lower the crime rate, they simply make things messier. You have a culture of gun ownership, connected with the idea of personal freedom. We have no culture of gun ownership and do not connect personal freedom with the ownership of a gun.


regards
ze germanguy

"An armed jew was a nuisance, an organized and armed jew was a danger."

Was that a Freudian slip?

>

 

[germanguy]

In what regard ?

regards
ze germanguy

 

[germanguy]

The number of guns in circulation on a national level influence the number of crimes done with the use of guns. They neither rise or lower the crime rate, they simply make things messier. You have a culture of gun ownership, connected with the idea of personal freedom. We have no culture of gun ownership and do not connect personal freedom with the ownership of a gun.


regards
ze germanguy

Absolutely not true at all.

The instance of violence and gun violence has far more to do with the varying levels of income in a society than any other factor, whatsoever.

If everyone in the country owned a gun and was middle income, there will be a low amount of violence, including gun violence.
If everyone was rich in a country, and owned a gun, there will also be a low amount of violence, including gun violence.
And if everyone in a country is poor, and owned guns, there would still be a low amount of violence, and gun violence.

It does not freaking MATTER how many people have weapons. EVERYONE has access to weapons.. I can make a Taser out of a disposable camera and a paper clip, for crying out loud.. I have heard of people getting stabbed with a screwdriver. People get SMOTHERED to death with pillows, or bludgeoned with (most recently in my neighborhood) a table leg, or baseball bat, hammer- name your blunt instrument.

We don't need guns to cause violence or deaths.. Guns just expedite the process of killing someone, and cause less bloodshed and effort, so that a person can make a kill with very little effort.

Again, GUNS do not kill people- People kill people.

Yes, but guns help! lol

If you are right, a South American Favela would be a place of peace and tranquility.
It is simply far more harder work to kill someone with a pillow, and it looks much less cool when drawn in school or at a fight with your Ex.

Anyway...
But again, if I would live in your neighborhood, I would quickly move to a more quit place.

regards
ze germanguy

 

[mightypeon]

Actually Switzerland has more gun deaths (especially if you include suicide) per capita than Germany, although it is more homogenous and richer (and has something akin to a requirement for having an assault rifle at home).

basically, if you are pissed and have a gun around, its much easier to kill someone in a fit of rage.
Also, I was the victim of a street gang once, 2 and a half blokes tried to kill me, and faeled because they had knifes and well, deficiencies in correctly operating their weaponry (got off with only a fairly deep stab in the leg, a shock and some major blood loss).
If they had guns I would very likely be dead, and I wouldnt have had a gun with me even under lax gun laws. At that day, I was going out clubbing, have a gun while beeing drunk? Better not! Would also limit the amount of clubs I could get into.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually Switzerland has more gun deaths (especially if you include suicide) per capita than Germany, although it is more homogenous and richer (and has something akin to a requirement for having an assault rifle at home).

basically, if you are pissed and have a gun around, its much easier to kill someone in a fit of rage.
Also, I was the victim of a street gang once, 2 and a half blokes tried to kill me, and faeled because they had knifes and well, deficiencies in correctly operating their weaponry (got off with only a fairly deep stab in the leg, a shock and some major blood loss).
If they had guns I would very likely be dead, and I wouldnt have had a gun with me even under lax gun laws. At that day, I was going out clubbing, have a gun while beeing drunk? Better not! Would also limit the amount of clubs I could get into.

Except that "rage" thing really doesn't happen all that often, statistically speaking. And plenty of people get stabbed.
FWIW, a knife is a whole lot more dangerous than a gun in close quarters. You were just damned lucky is all. A gun had nothing to do with it.

 

[Alvin]

The number of guns in circulation on a national level influence the number of crimes done with the use of guns. They neither rise or lower the crime rate, they simply make things messier. You have a culture of gun ownership, connected with the idea of personal freedom. We have no culture of gun ownership and do not connect personal freedom with the ownership of a gun.


regards
ze germanguy

Absolutely not true at all.

The instance of violence and gun violence has far more to do with the varying levels of income in a society than any other factor, whatsoever.

If everyone in the country owned a gun and was middle income, there will be a low amount of violence, including gun violence.
If everyone was rich in a country, and owned a gun, there will also be a low amount of violence, including gun violence.
And if everyone in a country is poor, and owned guns, there would still be a low amount of violence, and gun violence.

It does not freaking MATTER how many people have weapons. EVERYONE has access to weapons.. I can make a Taser out of a disposable camera and a paper clip, for crying out loud.. I have heard of people getting stabbed with a screwdriver. People get SMOTHERED to death with pillows, or bludgeoned with (most recently in my neighborhood) a table leg, or baseball bat, hammer- name your blunt instrument.

We don't need guns to cause violence or deaths.. Guns just expedite the process of killing someone, and cause less bloodshed and effort, so that a person can make a kill with very little effort.

Again, GUNS do not kill people- People kill people.

*Cough* Somalia *cough* Sudan *cough* Chad *Cough* Zimbabwe.

I think you didn't actually mean that...

 

[Alvin]

Thanks for the link, I'll review the statistics.

You're welcome.
I'll give you my take on them if that's ok.

Firstly 44% of murders the relationship between the victim and the murderer was not known. For the sake of arguement we'll ignore those because we can argue validly both ways.

Of the instances in which the relationship or lack thereof wbetween the murderer and victim was established, 76% knew the murderer as opposed to 23% that didn't.
Frankly I'm surprised that figure is so high.

What I take from those statistics is that firearms are not really required for home defence, as much as for personal defence. And that the home invasion scenario although common enough and an emotive subject for arguement shouldn't really be presented as the main arguement for personal posession of firearms for defence.

 

[Alvin]

In what regard ?

regards
ze germanguy

He's questioning whether you are a closet NAZI. I bet doesn't know very many German people.

 

[The Rabbi]

The number of guns in circulation on a national level influence the number of crimes done with the use of guns. They neither rise or lower the crime rate, they simply make things messier. You have a culture of gun ownership, connected with the idea of personal freedom. We have no culture of gun ownership and do not connect personal freedom with the ownership of a gun.


regards
ze germanguy

Absolutely not true at all.

The instance of violence and gun violence has far more to do with the varying levels of income in a society than any other factor, whatsoever.

If everyone in the country owned a gun and was middle income, there will be a low amount of violence, including gun violence.
If everyone was rich in a country, and owned a gun, there will also be a low amount of violence, including gun violence.
And if everyone in a country is poor, and owned guns, there would still be a low amount of violence, and gun violence.

It does not freaking MATTER how many people have weapons. EVERYONE has access to weapons.. I can make a Taser out of a disposable camera and a paper clip, for crying out loud.. I have heard of people getting stabbed with a screwdriver. People get SMOTHERED to death with pillows, or bludgeoned with (most recently in my neighborhood) a table leg, or baseball bat, hammer- name your blunt instrument.

We don't need guns to cause violence or deaths.. Guns just expedite the process of killing someone, and cause less bloodshed and effort, so that a person can make a kill with very little effort.

Again, GUNS do not kill people- People kill people.

*Cough* Somalia *cough* Sudan *cough* Chad *Cough* Zimbabwe.

I think you didn't actually mean that...

*cough* Panga *cough* Machete *cough cough*.
Citing events in Africa pretty much proves the point that culture has much mroe to do with violence than the presence or absence of guns.

 

[Alvin]

It does not freaking MATTER how many people have weapons. EVERYONE has access to weapons.. I can make a Taser out of a disposable camera and a paper clip, for crying out loud.. I have heard of people getting stabbed with a screwdriver. People get SMOTHERED to death with pillows, or bludgeoned with (most recently in my neighborhood) a table leg, or baseball bat, hammer- name your blunt instrument.

Tha's kinda the point. However your chances of surviving or coping with an attack from virtually anything else is greater than they are from what is essentially a single purpose item.

We don't need guns to cause violence or deaths.. Guns just expedite the process of killing someone, and cause less bloodshed and effort, so that a person can make a kill with very little effort.

And that is the issue. Usiing a gun is very easy, it's almost too easy. How many times have you heard of a husband/wife/child etc say they "didn't mean to do it, the gun just went off..." or somesuch.

Again, GUNS do not kill people- People kill people.

People with guns kill people, and as you said yourself;

"Guns just expedite the process of killing someone, and cause less bloodshed and effort, so that a person can make a kill with very little effort."

 

[mightypeon]

No, as someone who actually had some tournament success in Martial arts, a Knife is NOT more dangerous than a gun in a normal close quarter situation. If someone is wearing a bullet proff west (which wont be knife proof at all) than you may have a point. But, in a criminal vs. Civilian situation, where the criminal has the "element of suprise" or basically acts first, the Handguns loading time etc. become a non issue.
Secondly, running away from a gun is much more risky than running away from a knife.
Thirdly, especially an untrained handgun will be almost infinitly more dangerous than an equally untrained knife.


You can have some fun with comparing the percentage of succesfull murder (meaning Victim is dead) in non Gun countrys like Germany with countries like the US. I would expect that the percentage of succesfull murders will be higher in the USA.

 

[Alvin]

Good Grief!! Who gives a shit what is safer????? I mean, hell- it would be safer for kids, to outlaw swimming pools!! More kids die from fucking drownings every year than by firearm accidents!! Do you see the Brady Campaign even INFORMING their minions about that little fact?? NOOOO... Of course not!!!
So who fucking cares?
I mean, really- if people actually HAVE a pool in their yard, then why the fuck wouldn't they have a gun, as well.. We don't give a shit how unsafe the pool is, how unsafe the fucking sliding board on the playground is, or how unsafe it is to leave a freakin hair dryer plugged in next to the sink, while the 2 year old brushes their teeth, do we now..
Now these SAME idiotic and let me say for another fact- IGNORANT ass people, will say that they are so scared of having a gun in their house. Give me a fucking break.

These are the same people who might use a radiator that plugs into the wall, with TODDLERS running around the house. HOW RETARDED IS THAT SHIT.

These are the same people who build a treehouse in a tree that is 50 feet off the ground.. because that is OH SO INTELLIGENT, right.. So safe for the kids.. Its all about safety first, right?? My ASS it is.

Then you have all these idiots who swing through McDonalds with the kids, or better yet, "for the kids", three times a fucking week, and their kids are all OBESE and lucky that they have lived to be 13 years old, already, or are 6 and 7 years old, about to find out they have DEADLY childhood diabetes..

Oh and lets not forget the fucking morons on welfare (oh these ones are my favorite to bash) who wear all name brand shit, who buy their kids second hand clothes, etc, etc, and sit there bitching about how bad the school system is, or about how boring their kid's child care facility is, etc, and yet their kid doesn't even have ONE book, or toy. For these people, its all about being selfish and finding something to bitch about, because they cant get their own shit straight. They, too, are "pro-government" (but of course)- their income depends on it.

I am sick and damn tired of hearing all their bitching, myself. Guns are NOT safe. Duh. We all know that already.

Neither is drinking large quantities of alcohol, neither is smoking in bed, neither is having an indoor fire (yeah its called a fireplace- but it is still unsafe), neither is walking alone at night, neither is giving a teenager a cell phone (for sexting?? Jesus!), blah blah, blah...

But everyone does that shit, so deal with the fucking guns, already. We put up will all your shit, don't we?

All of those are punishible offences under child neglect and endangerment statutes aren't they?

First- disarm the police, and military, as long as they are not on a SWAT team, or in battle. THEN talk to us about OUR guns.. =)

Ok, move here or to the UK then (The only armed police force in Ireland and the UK is the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland). If you see pictures of armed police in Ireland or the UK, they are either special units (ARUs) or Special Branch (similar to the FBI)