The slippery slope of gun laws

[EvilMonkey]

One of the things that gun people say will happen with increasingly restrictive gun laws is that people will turn to other weapons, and then government will try to outlaw those weapons as well. A first hand look of that in action is going on in the UK, where politicians and police now want to outlaw knives and give manditory sentances for just carrying one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2236021,00.html

 

Norman Brennan, of the Knives Destroy Lives Campaign, reiterated his demand for a mandatory five-year prison sentence for anyone who carries a knife unreasonably. His call came as Islington borough police commander Bob Carr called for automatic prison sentences for anyone found carrying a knife.

[mreye]

I'm not surprised at all.

 

 

[GoSox05]

Next thing you know no one can have a light sabre or a laser blaster. What is the world coming to.

Edited January 7, 2008 by GoSox05

[YASNY]

They'll get my light sabre when they pry from my cold dead fingers.

[southsider2k5]

Let me mix this up by saying, this is the exact same way they have been undermining/defending abortion for 35 years now.

[EvilMonkey]

Let me mix this up by saying, this is the exact same way they have been undermining/defending abortion for 35 years now.

I agree. That is why the NRA and Pro choice people fight tooth and nail against every and anything that could go against them, because they know that once the camel starts to come into the tent, there is no stopping him. One gun restriction leads to another, and so on, and so on. In reality, at least as far as guns go, most gun owners are in favor of licensing, and even some limits on what types of guns, etc., but are wary of this very thing happening. After England bans knives, what's next? Cricket bats?

[GoSox05]

There are 80 million guns in the United States. No one is trying to take your guns away.

[Balta1701]

There are 80 million guns in the United States. No one is trying to take your guns away.

I am.

[GoSox05]

I am.

 

Than the terrorists have already won.

[YASNY]

I am.

 

Then one of us will die when you show up at my door.

[Balta1701]

Then one of us will die when you show up at my door.

And since I'll have all the guns...

[NorthSideSox72]

And since I'll have all the guns...

I disagree with you vehemently on this issue Balta, but... that was nicely played.

 

 

[Balta1701]

I disagree with you vehemently on this issue Balta, but... that was nicely played.

Not sure I've actually staked out a specific position here, just went for the joke. And if you don't believe me...that's why I have all the guns.

[YASNY]

And since I'll have all the guns...

 

That's the point. You'll have to have guns or you won't get mine. If you do have guns and try and take mine, then s*** will hit the fan. Of course, your response is exactly the reason I won't give up my gun. When tptb are the only ones that have guns, we are f***ed. Hang it up at that point. It's all over. Seig Heil!

[GoSox05]

That's the point. You'll have to have guns or you won't get mine. If you do have guns and try and take mine, then s*** will hit the fan. Of course, your response is exactly the reason I won't give up my gun. When tptb are the only ones that have guns, we are f***ed. Hang it up at that point. It's all over. Seig Heil!

 

 

Yeah cause that's how Hitler gained power.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yeah cause that's how Hitler gained power.

It was absolutely part of the process.

 

[YASNY]

It was absolutely part of the process.

 

It would have been a lot more difficult to kill 6 million Jews if they could have shot back.

[GoSox05]

It was absolutely part of the process.

 

 

It was a completely different situation. Many countries have tough gun laws and aren't trying to take over their people.

 

 

 

 

 

The Myth of Nazi Gun Control

 

 

By N. A. Browne

A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their ascent to and maintenance of power. A corollary argument is sometimes made that had the Jews (and presumably the other targeted groups) been armed, they could have fought off Nazi tyranny. This tract seeks to counter these misassumptions about Nazi gun control.

Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup.

 

The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany. The only feasible argument that gun control favored the Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). Secondary considerations that arise are that gun ownership was not that widespread to begin with, and, even imagining such ubiquity the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to their government.

 

The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. Any direct quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies. (See Bogus Gun Control Quotes and endnote [1].)

 

A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the 1928 Law. Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Nor were they alone in this mode of appeasement. The defiance of "never again" is not so much a warning to potential oppressors as it is a challenge to Jews to reject the passive response to pogrom. Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Their foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance. To project backward and speculate thus is to fail to learn the lesson history has so painfully provided.

 

The simple conclusion is that there are no lessons about the efficacy of gun control to be learned from the Germany of the first half of this century. It is all too easy to forget the seductive allure that fascism presented to all the West, bogged down in economic and social morass. What must be remembered is that the Nazis were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. There is the danger to which we should pay great heed. Not fanciful stories about Nazi's seizing guns.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

It was a completely different situation. Many countries have tough gun laws and aren't trying to take over their people.

The Myth of Nazi Gun Control

 

 

By N. A. Browne

A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their ascent to and maintenance of power. A corollary argument is sometimes made that had the Jews (and presumably the other targeted groups) been armed, they could have fought off Nazi tyranny. This tract seeks to counter these misassumptions about Nazi gun control.

Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup.

 

The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany. The only feasible argument that gun control favored the Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). Secondary considerations that arise are that gun ownership was not that widespread to begin with, and, even imagining such ubiquity the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to their government.

 

The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. Any direct quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies. (See Bogus Gun Control Quotes and endnote [1].)

 

A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the 1928 Law. Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Nor were they alone in this mode of appeasement. The defiance of "never again" is not so much a warning to potential oppressors as it is a challenge to Jews to reject the passive response to pogrom. Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Their foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance. To project backward and speculate thus is to fail to learn the lesson history has so painfully provided.

 

The simple conclusion is that there are no lessons about the efficacy of gun control to be learned from the Germany of the first half of this century. It is all too easy to forget the seductive allure that fascism presented to all the West, bogged down in economic and social morass. What must be remembered is that the Nazis were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. There is the danger to which we should pay great heed. Not fanciful stories about Nazi's seizing guns.

So, if I am reading this correctly... the author thinks that because gun control was partially in place prior to the Nazis, and because other factors were involved in their ascendancy... that taking away their guns didn't have an effect? He doesn't even attempt to point out a correlation. Parallel events don't cancel each other out. The article proves nothing other than to say that other factors were involved, and the Nazis didn't invent the concept. What does that prove?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

On the opposite end of the spectrum, more and more po-dunk city PD's are getting SWAT teams and just can't wait to use them:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080108/ap_on_re_us/medical_raid

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=7583987

 

http://www2.wcoil.com/~lpd/swat/swat.htm

If you want to pretend you're some special ops unit, just join the military.

[GoSox05]

So, if I am reading this correctly... the author thinks that because gun control was partially in place prior to the Nazis, and because other factors were involved in their ascendancy... that taking away their guns didn't have an effect? He doesn't even attempt to point out a correlation. Parallel events don't cancel each other out. The article proves nothing other than to say that other factors were involved, and the Nazis didn't invent the concept. What does that prove?

 

 

 

I think it prove's that a goverment dosen't need to take away guns to over take it's people. I think it also points out that other factors are invloded in taking over a people, not just taking away their guns.

 

 

I'm not for taking people's guns away. I'm for people having guns. I just think people in this country over react when talking about gun control.

[NorthSideSox72]

On the opposite end of the spectrum, more and more po-dunk city PD's are getting SWAT teams and just can't wait to use them:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080108/ap_on_re_us/medical_raid

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=7583987

 

http://www2.wcoil.com/~lpd/swat/swat.htm

If you want to pretend you're some special ops unit, just join the military.

Sometimes, the cops need access to the same hardware that the military does. Events occur, in this country, that are on scale with military-like situations. You may not like that, but is the solution to then allow then to run rampant?

 

The funny thing is, many US police departments are adding tactical units for the express purpose of becoming more like departments in Europe or Australia/NZ - where you have specialized tactical units, and the mainline force is less well-armed and more community service-focused. This ultimately helps build a bridge between police forces and the communities they serve.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I think it prove's that a goverment dosen't need to take away guns to over take it's people. I think it also points out that other factors are invloded in taking over a people, not just taking away their guns.

I'm not for taking people's guns away. I'm for people having guns. I just think people in this country over react when talking about gun control.

Well, since no one here has said that you NEED to take away a society's guns to control them, it seems to me you are the one overreacting. Taking away a nation's weapons is one tool in the box used by totalitarian regimes, and those who are moving in that direction (even if those moves are slight). There are certainly others - but saying that one oppresive policy is OK because others are not yet in place rings hollow to me.

 

[GoSox05]

Well, since no one here has said that you NEED to take away a society's guns to control them, it seems to me you are the one overreacting. Taking away a nation's weapons is one tool in the box used by totalitarian regimes, and those who are moving in that direction (even if those moves are slight). There are certainly others - but saying that one oppresive policy is OK because others are not yet in place rings hollow to me.

 

 

So do you think that America's or England's gun laws are being put in place to move to a totalitarian state?

 

[YASNY]

I think it prove's that a goverment dosen't need to take away guns to over take it's people. I think it also points out that other factors are invloded in taking over a people, not just taking away their guns.

I'm not for taking people's guns away. I'm for people having guns. I just think people in this country over react when talking about gun control.

 

I'm going to overreact every time. This is one issue I feel strongly about. You know, like to the extent of putting my life on the line. Other s*** I'll vote for or against. This one is non-negotiable.