How does that protect me considering LEO has no legal obligation to come to my aid?
-Geaux
How The NRA Enables Massacres
- Thread starter Howey
- Start date
How does that protect me considering LEO has no legal obligation to come to my aid?
-Geaux
007
Charter Member
Leftard hypocrisy...
It is a right, It is our 2nd amendment right.
The ones on the right, including the NRA have been saying all along that you need to get guns laws that target the mentally ill, not law abiders.
It is totally opposite of what you just said about the mentally ill.
Had the police gone into his bedroom it would have exposed his plot.
It is the ones on the left who defend the mentally ill ( due process).
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,094
- 86,522
- 2,645
History's Greatest Mass Murders occur when Armed Progressive Governments meet unarmed citizens: Mao's China, Stalin's USSR, Hitlers Germany.
Remember when Progs told us not to worry about Obama's Gun Control Plan because it was just like Hitlers?
Remember when Progs told us not to worry about Obama's Gun Control Plan because it was just like Hitlers?
Last edited:
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
Not what I asked I asked if they ever prevent a crime by drawing and not firing their weapons.
If the police had gone in and checked his bedroom, his plot to kill would have been exposed.
Do you realize that you are defending a mentally ill person who is a killer, his rights (which by the way is not in our constitution), but you are against law abiding citizens their 2nd amendment rights( which is in our constitution)?
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Chuck was a great actor, but he really, really did kind of go nuts there at the end.
[
No, there's an amendment about militias. Something that allows them to be "well-regulated". But let's get real, here. The founders never considered that there would be machine guns weilded by guys like Adam Lanza. Just like they never considered that people would be able to transmit images through the air across the country.
I think you are being a bit confused. Cars are actually needed and utilized, hence why we need to have them sensibly regulated. Guns are not really needed, and often when utilized, lead to really bad results, which is why we either need them strictly regulated or banned altogether.
No, the problem is, you guys keep advocating for laws to keep the gun nuts having access to guns.
Which is kind of understandable. Once you have to start convincing other people of your need for a gun, it gets trickier for you. The best argument for gun control is usually a conversation with a gun nut fantasizing about all the people he just can't wait to shoot.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Wow, still repeating these claims?
Mao's China and Stalin's Russia had LOTS of guns on the losing side, guy. We provided them. At the end of the day, they still lost and their neighbors still killed them.
Oh, yeah. Gun ownership was actually expanded in Hitler's Germany. There was more private gun ownership in Germany under Hitler than there is today.
007
Charter Member
sameech
VIP Member
- May 12, 2014
- 1,605
- 297
- 80
The NRA used to support gun regulations, training, etc. Perhaps if all the people who hate on the NRA were to join it, they could wrestle control of the organization back from the radical libertarians who hijacked it. Otherwise, the more you hate on them, the more you enable the polarized positioning they take.
Beyond that, blaming the NRA for some California nutball's action has no merit and serves no purpose other than to reinforce the battle lines. Gun grabbers such as yourself bit off more than they can chew when they started going after hunting rifles and handguns--two things you will never, ever, ever get banned, one of which accounts for the majority of gun crime.
007
Charter Member
YES, HITLER REALLY DID TAKE THE GUNS BEFORE THROWING JEWS INTO CONCENTRATION CAMPS (OR GAS CHAMBERS)
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 point was, Hitler had it in for the Jews, so he first disarmed them before carrying out his murderous campaign against them. And, unable to resist, millions died.
“In Germany, firearm registration helped lead to the holocaust,” National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre wrote in his book, “Gun, Crimes and Freedom.”
Nothing new under the sun
Here are some key aspects of the 1938 law:
– Police permission was required to own a handgun;
– All firearms had to be registered;
– Any Germans who enjoyed shooting bolt-action rifles were told to join the army “if they wished to shoot ‘military’ rifles,” writes LaPierre, in his book;
– The Nazi regime “also enacted the “Regulations against Jews’ possession of weapons” within the days of Kristallnacht – the ‘night of broken glass’ – when stormtroopers attacked synagogues and Jews throughout Germany,” he wrote;
– Firearms registration lists were used to identify (and persecute) gun owners (bear in mind that a New York newspaper just published the names and addresses of legal handgun permit holders after obtaining them via a Freedom of Information Act request, because permit holders by the very nature of obtaining the permit had to be registered [http://www.naturalnews.com/038479_gun_owners_New_York_newspaper.html]).
» Yes, Hitler Really Did Take the Guns Before Throwing Jews into Concentration Camps (or Gas Chambers) Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
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 point was, Hitler had it in for the Jews, so he first disarmed them before carrying out his murderous campaign against them. And, unable to resist, millions died.
“In Germany, firearm registration helped lead to the holocaust,” National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre wrote in his book, “Gun, Crimes and Freedom.”
Nothing new under the sun
Here are some key aspects of the 1938 law:
– Police permission was required to own a handgun;
– All firearms had to be registered;
– Any Germans who enjoyed shooting bolt-action rifles were told to join the army “if they wished to shoot ‘military’ rifles,” writes LaPierre, in his book;
– The Nazi regime “also enacted the “Regulations against Jews’ possession of weapons” within the days of Kristallnacht – the ‘night of broken glass’ – when stormtroopers attacked synagogues and Jews throughout Germany,” he wrote;
– Firearms registration lists were used to identify (and persecute) gun owners (bear in mind that a New York newspaper just published the names and addresses of legal handgun permit holders after obtaining them via a Freedom of Information Act request, because permit holders by the very nature of obtaining the permit had to be registered [http://www.naturalnews.com/038479_gun_owners_New_York_newspaper.html]).
» Yes, Hitler Really Did Take the Guns Before Throwing Jews into Concentration Camps (or Gas Chambers) Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Except, again, the Whites and the Kuomintang had plenty of guns in the Russian and Chinese Civil Wars.
There were even moments where it looked like they might win.
Lack of guns was not the problem.
====================================================
Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and "Enemies of the State" Paperback
Based on newly-discovered, secret documents from German archives, diaries and newspapers of the time, Gun Control in the Third Reich presents the definitive, yet hidden history of how the Nazi regime made use of gun control to disarm and repress its enemies and consolidate power. The countless books on the Third Reich and the Holocaust fail even to mention the laws restricting firearms ownership, which rendered political opponents and Jews defenseless. A skeptic could surmise that a better-armed populace might have made no difference, but the National Socialist regime certainly did not think so—it ruthlessly suppressed firearm ownership by disfavored groups.
Gun Control in the Third Reich spans the two decades from the birth of the Weimar Republic in 1918 through Kristallnacht in 1938. The book then presents a panorama of pertinent events during World War II regarding the effects of the disarming policies. And even though in the occupied countries the Nazis decreed the death penalty for possession of a firearm, there developed instances of heroic armed resistance by Jews, particularly the Warsaw ghetto uprising
Last edited:
007
Charter Member
The NRA hasn't been HIJACKED by ANYONE, moron. They always HAVE and always WILL stand for ONE THING, and that's to PROTECT THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
What HAS changed is the deranged frothing at the mouth demand from the left to DISARM law abiding Americans by RADICALS that have HIJACKED the DEMOCRAT party.
- Banned
- #55
The media, and the public at large, also has a tendency to exaggerate small (but catastrophic) risks, while downplaying substantial (but less "sexy") risks. That helps explain our national obsession with terrorism, even though you are much likelier to die in a car accident. And as scary as mass shootings are, you are more than twice as likely to die from suicide (12.4 deaths per 100,000) than homicide (5.3 deaths per 100,000). (Gun homicides cause 3.6 deaths per 100,000.)
RealClearScience - Top 10 Causes of Death in the U.S.
In an article dated Jan 9, 2013, during the peak of the push for gun bans, USAToday posted a misleading article stating that in 2010 10 out of every 100,000 died from fire-arm related deaths, almost as high as traffic accidents. The truth is only 3.6 per 100,000 die from homicides. And some of those were accidental, not murder.
Truth is, homicides of any kind is on the decline.
December 30, 2013 NCJ 243035
Presents data on homicide trends from 1992 to 2011. The report describes homicide patterns and trends by age, sex, and race of the victim. It explores weapon use, with a focus on trends in firearm use and homicide trends by city size. It also includes special discussions of missing offender data and firearm use in nonfatal violent victimizations. The data are from the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports, with summary data from Crime in the United States, for homicide data prior to 1980. Data on nonfatal victimizations are from BJS's National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993 to 1995 and 2008 to 2011.
Highlights:
The U.S. homicide rate declined by nearly half (49%), from 9.3 homicides per 100,000 U.S. residents in 1992 to 4.7 in 2011, falling to the lowest level since 1963. From 2002 to 2011, the average homicide rate for males was 3.6 times higher than the rate for females. The average homicide rate for blacks was 6.3 times higher than the rate for whites.
From 2002 to 2011, young adults ages 18 to 24 had the highest homicide rate of any age group and experienced the greatest rate decline (down 22%) over the 10-year period, from 15.2 per 100,000 in 2002 to 11.9 in 2011.
The rate of homicides involving a firearm decreased by 49% from 1992 to 2011, while the percentage of homicide victims killed by a firearm (67%) remained stable.
Large cities of 100,000 or more residents experienced the largest decline (23%) in homicide rates from 2002 to 2011, compared to communities with less than 100,000 residents.
From 2002 to 2011, the majority (95%) of homicide incidents involved a single victim. In 2011, 66% of homicides with a single victim involved a firearm, compared to 79% of homicide incidents with multiple victims.
Presents data on homicide trends from 1992 to 2011. The report describes homicide patterns and trends by age, sex, and race of the victim. It explores weapon use, with a focus on trends in firearm use and homicide trends by city size. It also includes special discussions of missing offender data and firearm use in nonfatal violent victimizations. The data are from the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports, with summary data from Crime in the United States, for homicide data prior to 1980. Data on nonfatal victimizations are from BJS's National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993 to 1995 and 2008 to 2011.
Highlights:
The U.S. homicide rate declined by nearly half (49%), from 9.3 homicides per 100,000 U.S. residents in 1992 to 4.7 in 2011, falling to the lowest level since 1963. From 2002 to 2011, the average homicide rate for males was 3.6 times higher than the rate for females. The average homicide rate for blacks was 6.3 times higher than the rate for whites.
From 2002 to 2011, young adults ages 18 to 24 had the highest homicide rate of any age group and experienced the greatest rate decline (down 22%) over the 10-year period, from 15.2 per 100,000 in 2002 to 11.9 in 2011.
The rate of homicides involving a firearm decreased by 49% from 1992 to 2011, while the percentage of homicide victims killed by a firearm (67%) remained stable.
Large cities of 100,000 or more residents experienced the largest decline (23%) in homicide rates from 2002 to 2011, compared to communities with less than 100,000 residents.
From 2002 to 2011, the majority (95%) of homicide incidents involved a single victim. In 2011, 66% of homicides with a single victim involved a firearm, compared to 79% of homicide incidents with multiple victims.
However, anti-gun propaganda by the media is on the rise. The problem isn't getting worse like the media claims, yet. Thanks to the Department of Justice and ICE, thousands of violent criminals and illegal immigrant criminals are being released into our cities to wreak havoc on the population. I suspect these numbers will be going up pretty soon.
007
Charter Member
Except, again, lack of guns to fight back IS the problem, period.
Except, again, the Whites and the Kuomintang had plenty of guns in the Russian and Chinese Civil Wars.
There were even moments where it looked like they might win.
Lack of guns was not the problem.
I don't know why you people think you can convince intelligent, logical people otherwise when the facts and history is right there for everyone to see, and it proves you wrong.
Perhaps it's your brain washing.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Actually, the Germans deprived German Jews of ALL their rights, not just guns.
And here was the thing.
German Jews were a very small percentage of those killed in the Holocaust. Most of them fled the country before the war started.
The vast majority of those killed in the Holocaust were people who lived in countries the Nazis conquered. IN short- lots of guns. Didn't really do a lot of good against tanks and planes and cannons.
So another right wing fallacy put to rest.
Germans had plenty of guns. So did the people they killed. Lack of guns did not cause the Holocaust.
- Banned
- #58
The number one cause of homicide in the gun-free UK is knife attack.
Take away the guns and the violence continues. The violence just becomes more personal.
Rampage in college town began with stabbings | News - KEYT
Take away the guns and the violence continues. The violence just becomes more personal.
Rampage in college town began with stabbings | News - KEYT
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.
However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The rest is here: Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive | The American Civil Rights Union
I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.
However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The rest is here: Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive | The American Civil Rights Union
Last edited:
Not for the political opponents.
Read some actual true historical facts and not the bullshit lies on the internet.
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf
This article address German firearms laws and Nazi policies and practices to disarm German citizens, particularly political opponents and Jews.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
House GOP Leaders Ask Tony Gonzales To Drop Reelection Bid
- Started by 0311
- Replies: 0
-
Trump Fires Kristi Noem, Names Mark Wayne Mullin As DHS Head- Started by skews13
- Replies: 1
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
Trump has authorized strikes on more nations than any other recent President- Latest: Etymology gaslight
-
