Teabagger Whacktard Joe the Plumber blames gun control for the Holocaust - Page 3

MG1962 · 22nd June 2012, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
The Hebrews did it first.
It's in the Book.
Lots of rules on the proper methods, also.
That Nazi Germany didn't do it properly, doesn't mean they weren't trying to.
They did have god on their side.

So in some twisted way, in your mind the Nazis were trying to replicate a process developed by the people they were trying to exterminate. Even though the Nazis rewrote the Bible eliminating all mention of the Jews. Even Jesus was no longer a Jew.

Some might say you are drawing a very long bow for no other reason than your own agenda

I Ratant · 22nd June 2012, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

So in some twisted way, in your mind the Nazis were trying to replicate a process developed by the people they were trying to exterminate. Even though the Nazis rewrote the Bible eliminating all mention of the Jews. Even Jesus was no longer a Jew.

Some might say you are drawing a very long bow for no other reason than your own agenda

.
No, not at all.
It's way above your literal mind.

MG1962 · 22nd June 2012, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
No, not at all.
It's way above your literal mind.

What you hijacking a thread. Don't walk outside the tickets might blow off

geni · 22nd June 2012, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

After having been in Afghanistan in '03, and contact with Afgans that made it through the occupation, I believe I have a decent picture of the reality of the situation.

And geni, the reason "gas vans" weren't used is not because of human rights concerns, it's because it's outdated technolgy.

Err china still uses them for executions. They aren't a bad choice for genocide allowing for highly mobile kill teams. I supose you could just bomb the area with sarin if you wanted but that creates cleanup problems.

Quote:

Check the ATF website for the estimated (emphasis on estimated) number of firearms in circulation in the U.S., then compare it to the last census figures for the U.S.

Then go here:

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=...w=1366&bih=643

Oh I know the raw numbers but the problem is most are held by the middle class. You even ban felons from owning one which from a military perspective is quite insane. You also don't have worthwhile levels of ownership of RPG series weapons or even their western equivalents.

Quote:

For the rich making poor insurgents, I think this particular individual could have made a problem for anyone had he taken it in mind:

http://www.mvtf.org/

Jacques Littlefield, R.I.P.

1)Logistics
2)any potential oponent knows where they are
3)The only cases I'm aware of of insergents using armoured vehicles have been very much oneshot events.

geni · 22nd June 2012, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

You are moving the goal posts. Killing off the entire population of a country (even if the Germans had done that exact thing) wasn't on the table, ruthless use of military force against civilians was.

So its not relivant to Nazi policies. Well we've got that out of the way

Quote:

On the rational side of things, it is a valid observation that controlling a populace armed with light weapons will require the use of more resources than controlling a populace not armed. Whether expending those resources will result in a particular outcome is up for speculation.

There isn't much evidence one way or the other. Sadam managed to keep control of a population that had a fair degree of acess to weapons for example. On the other hand the amount of rescources put into controling the largely unarmed east german population was insane by any normal standards.

BStrong · 22nd June 2012, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by geni

Err china still uses them for executions. They aren't a bad choice for genocide allowing for highly mobile kill teams. I supose you could just bomb the area with sarin if you wanted but that creates cleanup problems.

Oh I know the raw numbers but the problem is most are held by the middle class. You even ban felons from owning one which from a military perspective is quite insane. You also don't have worthwhile levels of ownership of RPG series weapons or even their western equivalents.

1)Logistics
2)any potential oponent knows where they are
3)The only cases I'm aware of of insergents using armoured vehicles have been very much oneshot events.

I get it, you're a crank yanker.

geni · 22nd June 2012, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

I get it, you're a crank yanker.

No I'm someone who pays attention to how wars actually work rather than the popular perception.

DC · 22nd June 2012, 08:52 PM

US Politics is so enterteining.

crimresearch · 22nd June 2012, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by geni

So its not relivant to Nazi policies. Well we've got that out of the way

There isn't much evidence one way or the other. Sadam managed to keep control of a population that had a fair degree of acess to weapons for example. On the other hand the amount of rescources put into controling the largely unarmed east german population was insane by any normal standards.

What a desperate and still ineffectual contortion of facts and logic.

Buh-bye.

Megalodon · 23rd June 2012, 05:07 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

And the Muj had nothing to do with the eventual failure of the occupation?

Could you quote where I said that or anything similar?

Quote:

And when you get down to it, why do you assert that resistance to a modern military force is futile?

I made no such assertion. It must be fun arguing with yourself.

But what I do assert is that resistance of a civilian population against a modern superpower bent on genocide is futile. Exodus is the only way in such an unlikely scenario.

BStrong · 23rd June 2012, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Megalodon

Could you quote where I said that or anything similar?

I made no such assertion. It must be fun arguing with yourself.

But what I do assert is that resistance of a civilian population against a modern superpower bent on genocide is futile. Exodus is the only way in such an unlikely scenario.

My apoligies - I was thinking Geni when I posted my response quoting you - again, my apoligies.

BStrong · 23rd June 2012, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by geni

No I'm someone who pays attention to how wars actually work rather than the popular perception.

Man, I've got to go back to JFK and pass the word - all that stuff they've been teaching is incorrect. I'll have to return my diploma.

According to a guy on a skeptic forum.

Where were you working in Afghanistan before '89, and where were you working there after '03?

I Ratant · 23rd June 2012, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by DC

US Politics is so enterteining.

.
Not when you're here.
The sheer stupidity of partisan politics as we do it is scary!

Shalamar · 23rd June 2012, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
Not when you're here.
The sheer stupidity of partisan politics as we do it is scary!

I'm so glad I can't vote. That way I can point at people and say, 'It's all YOUR fault!'

Megalodon · 23rd June 2012, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

My apoligies - I was thinking Geni when I posted my response quoting you - again, my apoligies.

No problem. Thank you for the good form.

geni · 23rd June 2012, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Man, I've got to go back to JFK and pass the word - all that stuff they've been teaching is incorrect. I'll have to return my diploma.

According to a guy on a skeptic forum.

Where were you working in Afghanistan before '89, and where were you working there after '03?

And thats an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

Your claim was "The sovs made a pretty good pass at it (killing off the entire population) in many rural areas, and couldn't pull it off."

If we look at modern genocide and near genocide attempts and consider the industrial and technical capactiy of the soviet union the afgan deathtoll seems way to low for them to have been seriously trying. Even the Rwandan thing killed off a higher percentage even though they were at least nominaly focusing on the Tutsi elements of the population.

Darat · 24th June 2012, 02:58 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

As should be clear to anyone who's been conscious the last 10 years the occupation can be much harder and deadlier than defeating the regular armiy is, because of militias.

Only if your intent is not genocide.

a_unique_person · 24th June 2012, 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by ravdin

The Third Reich's gun control laws were mostly carried over from the Weimar Republic. However, it's true that Jews were explicitly barred from possessing firearms as of 1938. I'm not convinced that they would have been able to defend themselves even if they had been armed, but it was one more dehumanizing step.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...-gun-ownership

IIRC, most of the Jews in Germany got out whenever and however they could. Most of those Jews killed were from the conquered countries.

JoeTheJuggler · 24th June 2012, 07:22 AM

These arguments supporting the idea that guns in the hands of the right people might have prevented the Holocaust are really tangential to the point of Wurtzlebacher's claim.

His reasoning is meant to oppose gun control laws in the U.S. As far as I know, contrary to NRA propaganda, there is no plan by anyone in the U.S. to disarm the entire populace of all guns. Also, as I pointed out in my previous post, the premise that "X was necessary for the Holocaust to have happened" doesn't lead to the conclusion that "X caused the Holocaust". (The Holocaust could not have happened without a wave of extreme nationalism--aka "patriotism"--for example.) And it certainly doesn't lead to the conclusion "doing X in 21st Century U.S will cause a modern Holocaust". And it most definitely doesn't lead to the conclusion "doing something that isn't X but can somehow be lumped vaguely in with a category that includes X in the 21st Century U.S. will cause a modern Holocaust"--which is really the tacit conclusion Wurzelbacher's flawed logic is attempting to assert.

ETA: And if anyone doubts that this is the unspoken conclusion Wurzelbacher is pointing toward, think of the alternative. If he's really only asserting that we should avoid doing anything that was necessary for the Holocaust to have happened, then we should avoid doing things like having political parties, having armies, having governments, using trains, using spoken and written language, breathing, eating, etc.--all actions that were necessary for the Holocaust to have happened.

Nessie · 24th June 2012, 07:37 AM

Lightly armed, untrained, unorganised civilians versus an army.

Then he has not taken in to consideration the fact that you need an army which is happy to turn against a certain part of society, which the Nazis, SS were against the Jews.

Can anyone really thing that the US army would turn against a section of US society like the SS did against the Jews?

Nope Joe the Plumber has not really thought this through.

davefoc · 24th June 2012, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

What a desperate and still ineffectual contortion of facts and logic.

Buh-bye.

I was sorry that you felt that way about geni's post. You and Twigget among others made some reasonable and balanced comments on this subject, I thought.

Geni's responses didn't seem that far off to me, even if I didn't quite agree with them, they seemed reasonable enough that a reasoned response would have been justified.

BStrong · 24th June 2012, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

These arguments supporting the idea that guns in the hands of the right people might have prevented the Holocaust are really tangential to the point of Wurtzlebacher's claim.

His reasoning is meant to oppose gun control laws in the U.S. As far as I know, contrary to NRA propaganda, there is no plan by anyone in the U.S. to disarm the entire populace of all guns. Also, as I pointed out in my previous post, the premise that "X was necessary for the Holocaust to have happened" doesn't lead to the conclusion that "X caused the Holocaust". (The Holocaust could not have happened without a wave of extreme nationalism--aka "patriotism"--for example.) And it certainly doesn't lead to the conclusion "doing X in 21st Century U.S will cause a modern Holocaust". And it most definitely doesn't lead to the conclusion "doing something that isn't X but can somehow be lumped vaguely in with a category that includes X in the 21st Century U.S. will cause a modern Holocaust"--which is really the tacit conclusion Wurzelbacher's flawed logic is attempting to assert.

ETA: And if anyone doubts that this is the unspoken conclusion Wurzelbacher is pointing toward, think of the alternative. If he's really only asserting that we should avoid doing anything that was necessary for the Holocaust to have happened, then we should avoid doing things like having political parties, having armies, having governments, using trains, using spoken and written language, breathing, eating, etc.--all actions that were necessary for the Holocaust to have happened.

Good post.

I will disagree with one issue though.

There are individuals in political positions (Dianne Feinstein comes to mind immediately) that in fact would ban whole classes of firearms from civilian possession (handguns, centerfire semi auto rifles with detachable mags, large caliber "sniping" rifles) and there are currently local laws that effectively restrict average civilians from owning or possessing any type of firearms (NY Sullivan laws)

Several successful lawsuits have turned the tide, but for the last 30 years the momentum was for ever increasing restrictions on every aspect of firearms ownership - in fact California is now on the verge of now requiring all long guns (shotguns and rifles) to be registered at point of sale in the same way handguns are - not because of criminal misuse of long guns, but because the California legislature is solidly anti-Second Amendment in the majority. As recently as three days ago, former state senator Don Perata said in an on camera interview that if someone wants to own a semi-auto matic rifle with certain features (detachable magazine, pistol grip) they should "move to Montana."

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...bullet-button/

"He said lack of action over the bullet button is putting Californians at risk. “If you want to use these guns go to Montana. Knock yourselves out. Move there. But this is California and we don’t want to have these kinds of guns here.”

There may not be overt calls for a blanket ban on firearms, but the death of a thousand cuts has been an effective tactic right up to the Heller decision.

Foolmewunz · 24th June 2012, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by stevea

Were Hamilton and Madison whacktard too ?

Well, Hamilton maybe. Madison, not so much.

Quote:

I don' think it's a stretch to estimate the entire process of eradicating a sub-population would be a slower, more painful and far less popular if they were armed.

Do you really think so? The Polish Army was armed, wasn't it? Had the Nazis decided to just round up a few million Poles and execute them, do you think the fact that they had arms would've deterred them very long.

The French Army? It took a few weeks to crush them. Again, if Adolf had decided to start rounding up the French and executing a few more million, what was to stop him? The thought that the French citizenry was armed?

And if Alex Jones is right and the UN and Obama are planning on instituting a police state, do you think the 2nd Amendment little blood to fertilize the tree of liberty crowd are going to stop the Guard, the Marines and the Air Force (not to mention the blue helmeted volunteers from Botswana).

The only reason Hitler didn't annihilate the populations in question is simply, "He didn't feel like it at the time." A coupld of eastern countries didn't get that lack of commitment, though. Nor did the Jews. And no amount of rifles over the mantle would've stopped him.

BStrong · 24th June 2012, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Lightly armed, untrained, unorganised civilians versus an army.

Then he has not taken in to consideration the fact that you need an army which is happy to turn against a certain part of society, which the Nazis, SS were against the Jews.

Can anyone really thing that the US army would turn against a section of US society like the SS did against the Jews?

Nope Joe the Plumber has not really thought this through.

Today there are more individuals with real world current combat experience out of unifom than in.

"Lighly armed" is more opinion than fact at this point:

For the uninformed, folks, that is a quad mount with 4 M3 high cyclic rate Browning .50 caliber machineguns. The guns are registered and legal, and were built by the owner.

For the other end of the spectrum:

Part of the Bruce Stern machinegun collection, sold by the estate. Every MG in this photo found a good home.

JoeTheJuggler · 24th June 2012, 08:35 AM

I really don't like to do the gun control debate thing, but. . .

Originally Posted by BStrong

but because the California legislature is solidly anti-Second Amendment in the majority.

So banning a class of firearms is against the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment says nothing about firearms, so I wonder if banning chemical or nuclear weapons is also against the Second Amendment? Are modern firearms somehow the only thing the framers had in mind?

Or could it be that the right spelled out in the Second Amendment, as with free speech rights guaranteed in the First Amendment, isn't an unlimited right, but can in fact be balanced and weighed against other legitimate public interests?

At any rate, your overall point is taken. There are some individuals who maybe want to enact nationwide gun control laws in the U.S. as strict as those of Nazi Germany, but they aren't going to win the political struggle to do so. And, back to my point, even if they did (which they won't since they are a fairly extreme minority), it doesn't follow that such a ban would cause a modern day Holocaust to happen.

There might be good reasons to oppose specific gun control legislation, but the Holocaust argument simply isn't one of them.

As I said in my first post, especially in the current economic situation, it's very important we elect people to Congress who are able to work with people who don't share their ideologies. Godwinning debates where reasonable minds can disagree isn't the way to accomplish anything.

One of the Coffee Party slogans goes something like, "I disagree with your position, but I'm pretty sure you're not a Nazi."

BStrong · 24th June 2012, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Well, Hamilton maybe. Madison, not so much.

Do you really think so? The Polish Army was armed, wasn't it? Had the Nazis decided to just round up a few million Poles and execute them, do you think the fact that they had arms would've deterred them very long.

The French Army? It took a few weeks to crush them. Again, if Adolf had decided to start rounding up the French and executing a few more million, what was to stop him? The thought that the French citizenry was armed?

And if Alex Jones is right and the UN and Obama are planning on instituting a police state, do you think the 2nd Amendment little blood to fertilize the tree of liberty crowd are going to stop the Guard, the Marines and the Air Force (not to mention the blue helmeted volunteers from Botswana).

The only reason Hitler didn't annihilate the populations in question is simply, "He didn't feel like it at the time." A coupld of eastern countries didn't get that lack of commitment, though. Nor did the Jews. And no amount of rifles over the mantle would've stopped him.

Alex Jones shouldn't be trusted to give you the right time of day, but even if he was, most U.S. troops are going to be reluctant to the point of mutiny to simply kill off U.S. civilians, nutjob propaganda to the contrary.

Foolmewunz · 24th June 2012, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

As should be clear to anyone who's been conscious the last 10 years the occupation can be much harder and deadlier than defeating the regular armiy is, because of militias.

The proviso being that the invading army merely wants to occupy and follows some semblance of standard rules of engagement or gives a **** about the Geneva Convention. Hitler had no such moral qualms. A German occupation with the Nazi armies at full strength was not concerned about civilian militia.

ETA: Sorry about the piling onto this, WC. I'm watching a strange movie and didn't note that there was a page and a half of the thread yet to read.

JoeTheJuggler · 24th June 2012, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

"Lighly armed" is more opinion than fact at this point:

Relative to what the government's military has? They've got any number of aircraft (bombers, fighters, surveillance, even drones), a navy, nuclear weapons, tanks, more and newer of everything you show here (by orders of magnitude), etc. etc. etc.

Yes, I think it's still "lightly armed" by comparison, even if the overall standards have gone up considerably since the 1930s and '40s.

ETA: Again, since we pretty much all recognize that the Second Amendment does not prohibit laws banning the possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons by individuals--and it uses the word "arms" and not "firearms"--the debate isn't about whether or not it establishes some unlimited sacred individual right to own any firearm at all, but whether or not the individual right to own firearms that it establishes isn't outweighed by other legitimate public interests. And if that's the real debate we're having about gun control laws, that is the issue that we should be talking about in assessing any specific proposal--not some broad absolute ideology.

BStrong · 24th June 2012, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I really don't like to do the gun control debate thing, but. . .

So banning a class of firearms is against the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment says nothing about firearms, so I wonder if banning chemical or nuclear weapons is also against the Second Amendment? Are modern firearms somehow the only thing the framers had in mind?

Or could it be that the right spelled out in the Second Amendment, as with free speech rights guaranteed in the First Amendment, isn't an unlimited right, but can in fact be balanced and weighed against other legitimate public interests?

At any rate, your overall point is taken. There are some individuals who maybe want to enact gun nationwide control laws in the U.S. as strict as those of Nazi Germany, but they aren't going to win the political struggle to do so. And, back to my point, even if they did (which they won't since they are a fairly extreme minority), it doesn't follow that such a ban would cause a modern day Holocaust to happen.

There might be good reasons to oppose specific gun control legislation, but the Holocaust argument simply isn't one of them.

As I said in my first post, especially in the current economic situation, it's very important we elect people to Congress who are able to work with people who don't share their ideologies. Godwinning debates where reasonable minds can disagree isn't the way to accomplish anything.

One of the Coffee Party slogans goes something like, "I disagree with your position, but I'm pretty sure you're not a Nazi."

According to the Heller decision, yes.

If a firearm is of a type in common use, it's protected by the Second Amendment.

Foolmewunz · 24th June 2012, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Alex Jones shouldn't be trusted to give you the right time of day, but even if he was, most U.S. troops are going to be reluctant to the point of mutiny to simply kill off U.S. civilians, nutjob propaganda to the contrary.

Well, since the government turning on the population ain't gonna happen, I don't think we'll have to find out, but I think we've certainly seen enough examples of the military in many countries following the orders of their higher-ups.

BStrong · 24th June 2012, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Well, since the government turning on the population ain't gonna happen, I don't think we'll have to find out, but I think we've certainly seen enough examples of the military in many countries following the orders of their higher-ups.

In the U.S. military it's been a part of the training curriculum at least since I joined in '74 that an enlisted or NCO had an obligation not to follow orders that were unlawful.

In a nutshell:

"The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ."

I believe that shooting and/or simply rounding up civilians would fall under "unlawful" for everybody in uniform these days. I know several folks E5 and up who would see it that way.

Corsair 115 · 24th June 2012, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Every MG in this photo found a good home.

That's all well and good, but it seems to me it wouldn't be much help if a tank rolls through the front door, a few artillery rounds are fired at the walls, or a bomber swings in and drops a couple of 500-lb. bombs on the roof.

End of home. End of person holding MG in the home.

JoeTheJuggler · 24th June 2012, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

According to the Heller decision, yes.

Nope. Heller even specifies that the individual right to possess firearms created in the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right.

From the holdings:

Quote:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Originally Posted by BStrong

If a firearm is of a type in common use, it's protected by the Second Amendment.

But that's a pretty big "if" isn't it? That's not the same as saying any ban of any category of firearm is a violation of the Second Amendment, is it?

So, laws prohibiting the possession of certain categories of firearms by certain categories of people would not necessarily be a violation of the Second Amendment.

For example, the Assault Weapons Ban was not struck down by the courts.

So the debate, again, should be over which laws are justified and which laws are not (and this involves weighing the individual right against legitimate public interests--usually safety). It should not be about some broad ideology, and it certainly should not be about pretending your opponent in such a debate wants to emulate the Nazis.

JoeTheJuggler · 24th June 2012, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Well, since the government turning on the population ain't gonna happen, I don't think we'll have to find out, but I think we've certainly seen enough examples of the military in many countries following the orders of their higher-ups.

Let's not forget which government the armed militias were supposed to stand up to!

"You couldn't be more wrong, Lisa. If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around. Do you want that? Huh? Do you?"

I Ratant · 24th June 2012, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

...t California is now on the verge of now requiring all long guns (shotguns and rifles) to be registered at point of sale in the same way handguns are - not because of criminal misuse of long guns, but because the California legislature is solidly anti-Second Amendment in the majority. As recently as three days ago, former state senator Don Perata said in an on camera interview that if someone wants to own a semi-auto matic rifle with certain features (detachable magazine, pistol grip) they should "move to Montana."

...

.
I bought a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in 1994.... ISTR there was the 15 day waiting period back then for long guns, brought on by the King riots, which had the gun stores selling out of long guns which had no waiting period at the time.
The Senate passed a bill on this in 1989, according to wiki.

I Ratant · 24th June 2012, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Well, Hamilton maybe. Madison, not so much.

Do you really think so? The Polish Army was armed, wasn't it? Had the Nazis decided to just round up a few million Poles and execute them, do you think the fact that they had arms would've deterred them very long.

The French Army? It took a few weeks to crush them. Again, if Adolf had decided to start rounding up the French and executing a few more million, what was to stop him? The thought that the French citizenry was armed?

And if Alex Jones is right and the UN and Obama are planning on instituting a police state, do you think the 2nd Amendment little blood to fertilize the tree of liberty crowd are going to stop the Guard, the Marines and the Air Force (not to mention the blue helmeted volunteers from Botswana).

The only reason Hitler didn't annihilate the populations in question is simply, "He didn't feel like it at the time." A coupld of eastern countries didn't get that lack of commitment, though. Nor did the Jews. And no amount of rifles over the mantle would've stopped him.

.
Lived in Germany from 1950 to 1953. The population had weapons.
We went to a demonstration of dog-training by the local jaeger-meisters, each of whom had their shotgun slung on their shoulders.
There were rifles for deer hunting also.
Two of the WWII souvenirs Dad sent us in NJ during his tour of Europe from 1944 to 1945 were German shotguns.

Foolmewunz · 24th June 2012, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

In the U.S. military it's been a part of the training curriculum at least since I joined in '74 that an enlisted or NCO had an obligation not to follow orders that were unlawful.

In a nutshell:

"The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ."

I believe that shooting and/or simply rounding up civilians would fall under "unlawful" for everybody in uniform these days. I know several folks E5 and up who would see it that way.

Since we're talking about something that's not going to happen, let's give some grounding to the hypothetical. One morning the POTUS wakes up and says, "Hmm, I think I'll go round up the Freemen on the Land and Gun Lovers for Jeebus" and issues an order to attack and if they resist, just shoot 'em all?

If this was ever to happen (and again, I don't see it happening) there will be some sort of very plausible back story, possibly an accurate back story, e.g. the attempt to exploit the veterans army and possibly seize the government in the 30s. With the back story, there would be a legal basis for their actions. I don't think as many uniformed personnel as you do would pause with thoughts of whether what they were doing would stand up to the scrutiny of a tribunal judging them according to the UCMJ. Did that stop the clowns at Abu Ghraib from their Photo Phrolics episodes? Did someone put one in Calley because "it's just wrong, man"? Do you think that the Guard at Jacksonville or at Kent State paused and thought, "Hmm, is this righteous, what we're doing? How would it be interpreted under the UCMJ?"

I have nothing against military personnel, per se. I just don't have faith in humans behaving honorably at all times, especially with peer pressure and orders from superiors who they are conditioned to obey.

BStrong · 24th June 2012, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Nope. Heller even specifies that the individual right to possess firearms created in the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right.

From the holdings:

But that's a pretty big "if" isn't it? That's not the same as saying any ban of any category of firearm is a violation of the Second Amendment, is it?

So, laws prohibiting the possession of certain categories of firearms by certain categories of people would not necessarily be a violation of the Second Amendment.

For example, the Assault Weapons Ban was not struck down by the courts.

So the debate, again, should be over which laws are justified and which laws are not (and this involves weighing the individual right against legitimate public interests--usually safety). It should not be about some broad ideology, and it certainly should not be about pretending your opponent in such a debate wants to emulate the Nazis.

From the holdings as well:

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54."

Your reference, emphasis added

" 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

If a rifle, handgun or shotgun is a standard title 1 (non-N.F.A. weapon or device) firearm in commercial distribution, it's a weapon considered to be "in common use."

Off to the movies, more to follow.

Nessie · 24th June 2012, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Today there are more individuals with real world current combat experience out of unifom than in.

"Lighly armed" is more opinion than fact at this point:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...ion/Quad50.jpg

For the uninformed, folks, that is a quad mount with 4 M3 high cyclic rate Browning .50 caliber machineguns. The guns are registered and legal, and were built by the owner.

For the other end of the spectrum:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...ollection4.jpg

Part of the Bruce Stern machinegun collection, sold by the estate. Every MG in this photo found a good home.

I was talking about the Jews being lightly armed as opposed to the SS.

Morrigan · 25th June 2012, 09:38 AM

I knew I shouldn't have clicked on this thread... the stupid hurts too much.

22nd June 2012, 08:52 PM	#88
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,674	US Politics is so enterteining.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

22nd June 2012, 10:42 PM	#89
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by geni So its not relivant to Nazi policies. Well we've got that out of the way There isn't much evidence one way or the other. Sadam managed to keep control of a population that had a fair degree of acess to weapons for example. On the other hand the amount of rescources put into controling the largely unarmed east german population was insane by any normal standards. What a desperate and still ineffectual contortion of facts and logic. Buh-bye.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

23rd June 2012, 05:07 AM	#90
Megalodon Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,522	Originally Posted by BStrong And the Muj had nothing to do with the eventual failure of the occupation? Could you quote where I said that or anything similar? Quote: And when you get down to it, why do you assert that resistance to a modern military force is futile? I made no such assertion. It must be fun arguing with yourself. But what I do assert is that resistance of a civilian population against a modern superpower bent on genocide is futile. Exodus is the only way in such an unlikely scenario.
Megalodon Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,522	__________________ Stupid is depressing...

23rd June 2012, 12:06 PM	#94
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Super Star Destroyer Executor Posts: 2,397	Originally Posted by I Ratant . Not when you're here. The sheer stupidity of partisan politics as we do it is scary! I'm so glad I can't vote. That way I can point at people and say, 'It's all YOUR fault!'
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

23rd June 2012, 06:45 PM	#95
Megalodon Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,522	Originally Posted by BStrong My apoligies - I was thinking Geni when I posted my response quoting you - again, my apoligies. No problem. Thank you for the good form.
Megalodon Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,522	__________________ Stupid is depressing...

22nd June 2012, 04:21 PM	#81
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by I Ratant . The Hebrews did it first. It's in the Book. Lots of rules on the proper methods, also. That Nazi Germany didn't do it properly, doesn't mean they weren't trying to. They did have god on their side. So in some twisted way, in your mind the Nazis were trying to replicate a process developed by the people they were trying to exterminate. Even though the Nazis rewrote the Bible eliminating all mention of the Jews. Even Jesus was no longer a Jew. Some might say you are drawing a very long bow for no other reason than your own agenda

22nd June 2012, 05:40 PM	#82
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by MG1962 So in some twisted way, in your mind the Nazis were trying to replicate a process developed by the people they were trying to exterminate. Even though the Nazis rewrote the Bible eliminating all mention of the Jews. Even Jesus was no longer a Jew. Some might say you are drawing a very long bow for no other reason than your own agenda . No, not at all. It's way above your literal mind.

22nd June 2012, 05:48 PM	#83
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by I Ratant . No, not at all. It's way above your literal mind. What you hijacking a thread. Don't walk outside the tickets might blow off

22nd June 2012, 07:52 PM	#84
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,575	Originally Posted by BStrong After having been in Afghanistan in '03, and contact with Afgans that made it through the occupation, I believe I have a decent picture of the reality of the situation. And geni, the reason "gas vans" weren't used is not because of human rights concerns, it's because it's outdated technolgy. Err china still uses them for executions. They aren't a bad choice for genocide allowing for highly mobile kill teams. I supose you could just bomb the area with sarin if you wanted but that creates cleanup problems. Quote: Check the ATF website for the estimated (emphasis on estimated) number of firearms in circulation in the U.S., then compare it to the last census figures for the U.S. Then go here: https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=...w=1366&bih=643 Oh I know the raw numbers but the problem is most are held by the middle class. You even ban felons from owning one which from a military perspective is quite insane. You also don't have worthwhile levels of ownership of RPG series weapons or even their western equivalents. Quote: For the rich making poor insurgents, I think this particular individual could have made a problem for anyone had he taken it in mind: http://www.mvtf.org/ Jacques Littlefield, R.I.P. 1)Logistics 2)any potential oponent knows where they are 3)The only cases I'm aware of of insergents using armoured vehicles have been very much oneshot events.

22nd June 2012, 07:56 PM	#85
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,575	Originally Posted by crimresearch You are moving the goal posts. Killing off the entire population of a country (even if the Germans had done that exact thing) wasn't on the table, ruthless use of military force against civilians was. So its not relivant to Nazi policies. Well we've got that out of the way Quote: On the rational side of things, it is a valid observation that controlling a populace armed with light weapons will require the use of more resources than controlling a populace not armed. Whether expending those resources will result in a particular outcome is up for speculation. There isn't much evidence one way or the other. Sadam managed to keep control of a population that had a fair degree of acess to weapons for example. On the other hand the amount of rescources put into controling the largely unarmed east german population was insane by any normal standards.

22nd June 2012, 08:17 PM	#86
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,820	Originally Posted by geni Err china still uses them for executions. They aren't a bad choice for genocide allowing for highly mobile kill teams. I supose you could just bomb the area with sarin if you wanted but that creates cleanup problems. Oh I know the raw numbers but the problem is most are held by the middle class. You even ban felons from owning one which from a military perspective is quite insane. You also don't have worthwhile levels of ownership of RPG series weapons or even their western equivalents. 1)Logistics 2)any potential oponent knows where they are 3)The only cases I'm aware of of insergents using armoured vehicles have been very much oneshot events. I get it, you're a crank yanker.

22nd June 2012, 08:21 PM	#87
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,575	Originally Posted by BStrong I get it, you're a crank yanker. No I'm someone who pays attention to how wars actually work rather than the popular perception.

23rd June 2012, 07:11 AM	#91
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,820	Originally Posted by Megalodon Could you quote where I said that or anything similar? I made no such assertion. It must be fun arguing with yourself. But what I do assert is that resistance of a civilian population against a modern superpower bent on genocide is futile. Exodus is the only way in such an unlikely scenario. My apoligies - I was thinking Geni when I posted my response quoting you - again, my apoligies.

23rd June 2012, 07:15 AM	#92
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,820	Originally Posted by geni No I'm someone who pays attention to how wars actually work rather than the popular perception. Man, I've got to go back to JFK and pass the word - all that stuff they've been teaching is incorrect. I'll have to return my diploma. According to a guy on a skeptic forum. Where were you working in Afghanistan before '89, and where were you working there after '03?

23rd June 2012, 09:21 AM	#93
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by DC US Politics is so enterteining. . Not when you're here. The sheer stupidity of partisan politics as we do it is scary!

23rd June 2012, 09:54 PM	#96
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,575	Originally Posted by BStrong Man, I've got to go back to JFK and pass the word - all that stuff they've been teaching is incorrect. I'll have to return my diploma. According to a guy on a skeptic forum. Where were you working in Afghanistan before '89, and where were you working there after '03? And thats an appeal to authority logical fallacy. Your claim was "The sovs made a pretty good pass at it (killing off the entire population) in many rural areas, and couldn't pull it off." If we look at modern genocide and near genocide attempts and consider the industrial and technical capactiy of the soviet union the afgan deathtoll seems way to low for them to have been seriously trying. Even the Rwandan thing killed off a higher percentage even though they were at least nominaly focusing on the Tutsi elements of the population.

24th June 2012, 02:58 AM	#97
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,793	Originally Posted by WildCat As should be clear to anyone who's been conscious the last 10 years the occupation can be much harder and deadlier than defeating the regular armiy is, because of militias. Only if your intent is not genocide.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

24th June 2012, 03:30 AM	#98
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,329	Originally Posted by ravdin The Third Reich's gun control laws were mostly carried over from the Weimar Republic. However, it's true that Jews were explicitly barred from possessing firearms as of 1938. I'm not convinced that they would have been able to defend themselves even if they had been armed, but it was one more dehumanizing step. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...-gun-ownership IIRC, most of the Jews in Germany got out whenever and however they could. Most of those Jews killed were from the conquered countries.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

24th June 2012, 07:22 AM	#99
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	These arguments supporting the idea that guns in the hands of the right people might have prevented the Holocaust are really tangential to the point of Wurtzlebacher's claim. His reasoning is meant to oppose gun control laws in the U.S. As far as I know, contrary to NRA propaganda, there is no plan by anyone in the U.S. to disarm the entire populace of all guns. Also, as I pointed out in my previous post, the premise that "X was necessary for the Holocaust to have happened" doesn't lead to the conclusion that "X caused the Holocaust". (The Holocaust could not have happened without a wave of extreme nationalism--aka "patriotism"--for example.) And it certainly doesn't lead to the conclusion "doing X in 21st Century U.S will cause a modern Holocaust". And it most definitely doesn't lead to the conclusion "doing something that isn't X but can somehow be lumped vaguely in with a category that includes X in the 21st Century U.S. will cause a modern Holocaust"--which is really the tacit conclusion Wurzelbacher's flawed logic is attempting to assert. ETA: And if anyone doubts that this is the unspoken conclusion Wurzelbacher is pointing toward, think of the alternative. If he's really only asserting that we should avoid doing anything that was necessary for the Holocaust to have happened, then we should avoid doing things like having political parties, having armies, having governments, using trains, using spoken and written language, breathing, eating, etc.--all actions that were necessary for the Holocaust to have happened.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 24th June 2012 at 07:52 AM.

24th June 2012, 07:37 AM	#100
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,856	Lightly armed, untrained, unorganised civilians versus an army. Then he has not taken in to consideration the fact that you need an army which is happy to turn against a certain part of society, which the Nazis, SS were against the Jews. Can anyone really thing that the US army would turn against a section of US society like the SS did against the Jews? Nope Joe the Plumber has not really thought this through.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

24th June 2012, 07:49 AM	#101
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 7,255	Originally Posted by crimresearch What a desperate and still ineffectual contortion of facts and logic. Buh-bye. I was sorry that you felt that way about geni's post. You and Twigget among others made some reasonable and balanced comments on this subject, I thought. Geni's responses didn't seem that far off to me, even if I didn't quite agree with them, they seemed reasonable enough that a reasoned response would have been justified.
	__________________ The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb

24th June 2012, 08:17 AM	#102
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,820	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler These arguments supporting the idea that guns in the hands of the right people might have prevented the Holocaust are really tangential to the point of Wurtzlebacher's claim. His reasoning is meant to oppose gun control laws in the U.S. As far as I know, contrary to NRA propaganda, there is no plan by anyone in the U.S. to disarm the entire populace of all guns. Also, as I pointed out in my previous post, the premise that "X was necessary for the Holocaust to have happened" doesn't lead to the conclusion that "X caused the Holocaust". (The Holocaust could not have happened without a wave of extreme nationalism--aka "patriotism"--for example.) And it certainly doesn't lead to the conclusion "doing X in 21st Century U.S will cause a modern Holocaust". And it most definitely doesn't lead to the conclusion "doing something that isn't X but can somehow be lumped vaguely in with a category that includes X in the 21st Century U.S. will cause a modern Holocaust"--which is really the tacit conclusion Wurzelbacher's flawed logic is attempting to assert. ETA: And if anyone doubts that this is the unspoken conclusion Wurzelbacher is pointing toward, think of the alternative. If he's really only asserting that we should avoid doing anything that was necessary for the Holocaust to have happened, then we should avoid doing things like having political parties, having armies, having governments, using trains, using spoken and written language, breathing, eating, etc.--all actions that were necessary for the Holocaust to have happened. Good post. I will disagree with one issue though. There are individuals in political positions (Dianne Feinstein comes to mind immediately) that in fact would ban whole classes of firearms from civilian possession (handguns, centerfire semi auto rifles with detachable mags, large caliber "sniping" rifles) and there are currently local laws that effectively restrict average civilians from owning or possessing any type of firearms (NY Sullivan laws) Several successful lawsuits have turned the tide, but for the last 30 years the momentum was for ever increasing restrictions on every aspect of firearms ownership - in fact California is now on the verge of now requiring all long guns (shotguns and rifles) to be registered at point of sale in the same way handguns are - not because of criminal misuse of long guns, but because the California legislature is solidly anti-Second Amendment in the majority. As recently as three days ago, former state senator Don Perata said in an on camera interview that if someone wants to own a semi-auto matic rifle with certain features (detachable magazine, pistol grip) they should "move to Montana." http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...bullet-button/ "He said lack of action over the bullet button is putting Californians at risk. “If you want to use these guns go to Montana. Knock yourselves out. Move there. But this is California and we don’t want to have these kinds of guns here.” There may not be overt calls for a blanket ban on firearms, but the death of a thousand cuts has been an effective tactic right up to the Heller decision.

24th June 2012, 08:30 AM	#103
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,523	Originally Posted by stevea Were Hamilton and Madison whacktard too ? Well, Hamilton maybe. Madison, not so much. Quote: I don' think it's a stretch to estimate the entire process of eradicating a sub-population would be a slower, more painful and far less popular if they were armed. Do you really think so? The Polish Army was armed, wasn't it? Had the Nazis decided to just round up a few million Poles and execute them, do you think the fact that they had arms would've deterred them very long. The French Army? It took a few weeks to crush them. Again, if Adolf had decided to start rounding up the French and executing a few more million, what was to stop him? The thought that the French citizenry was armed? And if Alex Jones is right and the UN and Obama are planning on instituting a police state, do you think the 2nd Amendment little blood to fertilize the tree of liberty crowd are going to stop the Guard, the Marines and the Air Force (not to mention the blue helmeted volunteers from Botswana). The only reason Hitler didn't annihilate the populations in question is simply, "He didn't feel like it at the time." A coupld of eastern countries didn't get that lack of commitment, though. Nor did the Jews. And no amount of rifles over the mantle would've stopped him.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

24th June 2012, 08:32 AM	#104
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,820	Originally Posted by Nessie Lightly armed, untrained, unorganised civilians versus an army. Then he has not taken in to consideration the fact that you need an army which is happy to turn against a certain part of society, which the Nazis, SS were against the Jews. Can anyone really thing that the US army would turn against a section of US society like the SS did against the Jews? Nope Joe the Plumber has not really thought this through. Today there are more individuals with real world current combat experience out of unifom than in. "Lighly armed" is more opinion than fact at this point: For the uninformed, folks, that is a quad mount with 4 M3 high cyclic rate Browning .50 caliber machineguns. The guns are registered and legal, and were built by the owner. For the other end of the spectrum: Part of the Bruce Stern machinegun collection, sold by the estate. Every MG in this photo found a good home.

24th June 2012, 08:35 AM	#105
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	I really don't like to do the gun control debate thing, but. . . Originally Posted by BStrong but because the California legislature is solidly anti-Second Amendment in the majority. So banning a class of firearms is against the Second Amendment? The Second Amendment says nothing about firearms, so I wonder if banning chemical or nuclear weapons is also against the Second Amendment? Are modern firearms somehow the only thing the framers had in mind? Or could it be that the right spelled out in the Second Amendment, as with free speech rights guaranteed in the First Amendment, isn't an unlimited right, but can in fact be balanced and weighed against other legitimate public interests? At any rate, your overall point is taken. There are some individuals who maybe want to enact nationwide gun control laws in the U.S. as strict as those of Nazi Germany, but they aren't going to win the political struggle to do so. And, back to my point, even if they did (which they won't since they are a fairly extreme minority), it doesn't follow that such a ban would cause a modern day Holocaust to happen. There might be good reasons to oppose specific gun control legislation, but the Holocaust argument simply isn't one of them. As I said in my first post, especially in the current economic situation, it's very important we elect people to Congress who are able to work with people who don't share their ideologies. Godwinning debates where reasonable minds can disagree isn't the way to accomplish anything. One of the Coffee Party slogans goes something like, "I disagree with your position, but I'm pretty sure you're not a Nazi."
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 24th June 2012 at 08:46 AM.

24th June 2012, 08:37 AM	#106
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,820	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Well, Hamilton maybe. Madison, not so much. Do you really think so? The Polish Army was armed, wasn't it? Had the Nazis decided to just round up a few million Poles and execute them, do you think the fact that they had arms would've deterred them very long. The French Army? It took a few weeks to crush them. Again, if Adolf had decided to start rounding up the French and executing a few more million, what was to stop him? The thought that the French citizenry was armed? And if Alex Jones is right and the UN and Obama are planning on instituting a police state, do you think the 2nd Amendment little blood to fertilize the tree of liberty crowd are going to stop the Guard, the Marines and the Air Force (not to mention the blue helmeted volunteers from Botswana). The only reason Hitler didn't annihilate the populations in question is simply, "He didn't feel like it at the time." A coupld of eastern countries didn't get that lack of commitment, though. Nor did the Jews. And no amount of rifles over the mantle would've stopped him. Alex Jones shouldn't be trusted to give you the right time of day, but even if he was, most U.S. troops are going to be reluctant to the point of mutiny to simply kill off U.S. civilians, nutjob propaganda to the contrary.

24th June 2012, 08:40 AM	#107
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,523	Originally Posted by WildCat As should be clear to anyone who's been conscious the last 10 years the occupation can be much harder and deadlier than defeating the regular armiy is, because of militias. The proviso being that the invading army merely wants to occupy and follows some semblance of standard rules of engagement or gives a **** about the Geneva Convention. Hitler had no such moral qualms. A German occupation with the Nazi armies at full strength was not concerned about civilian militia. ETA: Sorry about the piling onto this, WC. I'm watching a strange movie and didn't note that there was a page and a half of the thread yet to read.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i] Last edited by Foolmewunz; 24th June 2012 at 08:45 AM.

24th June 2012, 08:41 AM	#108
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by BStrong "Lighly armed" is more opinion than fact at this point: Relative to what the government's military has? They've got any number of aircraft (bombers, fighters, surveillance, even drones), a navy, nuclear weapons, tanks, more and newer of everything you show here (by orders of magnitude), etc. etc. etc. Yes, I think it's still "lightly armed" by comparison, even if the overall standards have gone up considerably since the 1930s and '40s. ETA: Again, since we pretty much all recognize that the Second Amendment does not prohibit laws banning the possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons by individuals--and it uses the word "arms" and not "firearms"--the debate isn't about whether or not it establishes some unlimited sacred individual right to own any firearm at all, but whether or not the individual right to own firearms that it establishes isn't outweighed by other legitimate public interests. And if that's the real debate we're having about gun control laws, that is the issue that we should be talking about in assessing any specific proposal--not some broad absolute ideology.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 24th June 2012 at 08:45 AM.

24th June 2012, 08:43 AM	#109
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,820	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler I really don't like to do the gun control debate thing, but. . . So banning a class of firearms is against the Second Amendment? The Second Amendment says nothing about firearms, so I wonder if banning chemical or nuclear weapons is also against the Second Amendment? Are modern firearms somehow the only thing the framers had in mind? Or could it be that the right spelled out in the Second Amendment, as with free speech rights guaranteed in the First Amendment, isn't an unlimited right, but can in fact be balanced and weighed against other legitimate public interests? At any rate, your overall point is taken. There are some individuals who maybe want to enact gun nationwide control laws in the U.S. as strict as those of Nazi Germany, but they aren't going to win the political struggle to do so. And, back to my point, even if they did (which they won't since they are a fairly extreme minority), it doesn't follow that such a ban would cause a modern day Holocaust to happen. There might be good reasons to oppose specific gun control legislation, but the Holocaust argument simply isn't one of them. As I said in my first post, especially in the current economic situation, it's very important we elect people to Congress who are able to work with people who don't share their ideologies. Godwinning debates where reasonable minds can disagree isn't the way to accomplish anything. One of the Coffee Party slogans goes something like, "I disagree with your position, but I'm pretty sure you're not a Nazi." According to the Heller decision, yes. If a firearm is of a type in common use, it's protected by the Second Amendment.

24th June 2012, 08:51 AM	#110
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,523	Originally Posted by BStrong Alex Jones shouldn't be trusted to give you the right time of day, but even if he was, most U.S. troops are going to be reluctant to the point of mutiny to simply kill off U.S. civilians, nutjob propaganda to the contrary. Well, since the government turning on the population ain't gonna happen, I don't think we'll have to find out, but I think we've certainly seen enough examples of the military in many countries following the orders of their higher-ups.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

24th June 2012, 09:10 AM	#111
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,820	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Well, since the government turning on the population ain't gonna happen, I don't think we'll have to find out, but I think we've certainly seen enough examples of the military in many countries following the orders of their higher-ups. In the U.S. military it's been a part of the training curriculum at least since I joined in '74 that an enlisted or NCO had an obligation not to follow orders that were unlawful. In a nutshell: "The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ." I believe that shooting and/or simply rounding up civilians would fall under "unlawful" for everybody in uniform these days. I know several folks E5 and up who would see it that way.

24th June 2012, 09:25 AM	#112
Corsair 115 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Tranquility Base Posts: 8,584	Originally Posted by BStrong Every MG in this photo found a good home. That's all well and good, but it seems to me it wouldn't be much help if a tank rolls through the front door, a few artillery rounds are fired at the walls, or a bomber swings in and drops a couple of 500-lb. bombs on the roof. End of home. End of person holding MG in the home.
	__________________ "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

24th June 2012, 09:40 AM	#113
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by BStrong According to the Heller decision, yes. Nope. Heller even specifies that the individual right to possess firearms created in the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right. From the holdings: Quote: Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Originally Posted by BStrong If a firearm is of a type in common use, it's protected by the Second Amendment. But that's a pretty big "if" isn't it? That's not the same as saying any ban of any category of firearm is a violation of the Second Amendment, is it? So, laws prohibiting the possession of certain categories of firearms by certain categories of people would not necessarily be a violation of the Second Amendment. For example, the Assault Weapons Ban was not struck down by the courts. So the debate, again, should be over which laws are justified and which laws are not (and this involves weighing the individual right against legitimate public interests--usually safety). It should not be about some broad ideology, and it certainly should not be about pretending your opponent in such a debate wants to emulate the Nazis.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

24th June 2012, 09:46 AM	#114
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Well, since the government turning on the population ain't gonna happen, I don't think we'll have to find out, but I think we've certainly seen enough examples of the military in many countries following the orders of their higher-ups. Let's not forget which government the armed militias were supposed to stand up to! "You couldn't be more wrong, Lisa. If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around. Do you want that? Huh? Do you?"
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

24th June 2012, 09:55 AM	#115
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by BStrong ...t California is now on the verge of now requiring all long guns (shotguns and rifles) to be registered at point of sale in the same way handguns are - not because of criminal misuse of long guns, but because the California legislature is solidly anti-Second Amendment in the majority. As recently as three days ago, former state senator Don Perata said in an on camera interview that if someone wants to own a semi-auto matic rifle with certain features (detachable magazine, pistol grip) they should "move to Montana." ... . I bought a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in 1994.... ISTR there was the 15 day waiting period back then for long guns, brought on by the King riots, which had the gun stores selling out of long guns which had no waiting period at the time. The Senate passed a bill on this in 1989, according to wiki.