• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

gun control

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Yes, they can get access.

How often does it happen? Rarely.

Take note, America.

Dude, it's a little late to fix your "problem" with America's guns. You think people are going to walk in and hand in their arms willingly to the government? "Hey guys, I spent thousands of dollars and many years collecting these but you said you'd like them now... so here you go!" GMAFB.

England already had restricted gun laws when they "banned" them.
 
Dude, it's a little late to fix your "problem" with America's guns. You think people are going to walk in and hand in their arms willingly to the government? "Hey guys, I spent thousands of dollars and many years collecting these but you said you'd like them now... so here you go!" GMAFB.

England already had restricted gun laws when they "banned" them.

How about registering each an every one of them in a more comprehensive system similar to that in Japan.

How about thorough classes and exams, shooting tests and psychological evaluations which must be completed every few years.

These are incremental steps, which is what they should be working towards.


Not saying "oh well this would have never been stopped" and moving on.

The ultimate goal should be working towards the removing the NEED for guns an ammo.
 
How about registering each an every one of them in a more comprehensive system similar to that in Japan.

How about thorough classes and exams, shooting tests and psychological evaluations which must be completed every few years.

These are incremental steps, which is what they should be working towards.


Not saying "oh well this would have never been stopped" and moving on.

The ultimate goal should be working towards the removing the NEED for guns an ammo.

Because as soon as you start registering people that own guns, you'll give future regimes a list of people they need to eliminate first if they want to take power. I'm not saying it would happen today, tomorrow, or even in 20 years, but you know that list would be very important to someone.
 
Because as soon as you start registering people that own guns, you'll give future regimes a list of people they need to eliminate first if they want to take power. I'm not saying it would happen today, tomorrow, or even in 20 years, but you know that list would be very important to someone.

Please. That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

I hate to break this to you, but the second amendment was written hundreds of years ago when the threat of invasion from another country was realistic and the concept that a group of people could band together and overthrow a tyrannical government regime wasn't laughable. The implications of the second amendment have almost no bearing on modern society, when the idea of another country legitimately invading ours is laughable at the worst of times and the idea that any of us would stand a chance with semi-automatic assault rifles against a United States army that has tanks, drones, and all manner of other hilariously deadly weaponry is downright ludicrous.

If the government ever wants to take full control of every part of our lives, they can do it at any fucking time they want and we'd be powerless to stop them. If you think the fact that the citizens have laughably under-powered weaponry would even be a momentary deterrent to a regime with that mindset well, then I really don't know what to tell you. We need to stop pretending that we live in the same world as when the constitution was written. We don't. We've changed aspects of it before and we surely will again. Simply using the second amendment as an argument for allowing people to keep their guns is an idiotic argument at the best of times.

And that's not saying that we should outlaw guns. It's saying that using a document written hundreds of years ago to defend the average citizen's right to own a Glock is moronic.

We owe it to ourselves to create better, safer gun laws that protect the citizens of this country. Right now, the laws we have clearly aren't working well enough, and that alone should be a sign that things need to changed.
 
Please. That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

I hate to break this to you, but the second amendment was written hundreds of years ago when the threat of invasion from another country was realistic and the concept that a group of people could band together and overthrow a tyrannical government regime wasn't laughable. The implications of the second amendment have almost no bearing on modern society, when the idea of another country legitimately invading ours is laughable at the worst of times and the idea that any of us would stand a chance with semi-automatic assault rifles against a United States army that has tanks, drones, and all manner of other hilariously deadly weaponry is downright ludicrous.

If the government ever wants to take full control of every part of our lives, they can do it at any fucking time they want and we'd be powerless to stop them. If you think the fact that the citizens have laughably under-powered weaponry would even be a momentary deterrent to a regime with that mindset well, then I really don't know what to tell you. We need to stop pretending that we live in the same world as when the constitution was written. We don't. We've changed aspects of it before and we surely will again. Simply using the second amendment as an argument for allowing people to keep their guns is an idiotic argument at the best of times.

And that's not saying that we should outlaw guns. It's saying that using a document written hundreds of years ago to defend the average citizen's right to own a Glock is moronic.

We owe it to ourselves to create better, safer gun laws that protect the citizens of this country. Right now, the laws we have clearly aren't working well enough, and that alone should be a sign that things need to changed.

Keep telling yourself that. If the government wanted to take over they'd have a hard time convincing the militia, which is still VOLUNTARY and made up on CIVILIANS to turn on their families, friends, and neighbors.
 
Because as soon as you start registering people that own guns, you'll give future regimes a list of people they need to eliminate first if they want to take power. I'm not saying it would happen today, tomorrow, or even in 20 years, but you know that list would be very important to someone.

That's what happened to the Jews. They were mostly disarmed...the one's that still had them were the one's they targeted first.


Hitler’s Control


By Kopel-Griffiths

May 22, 2003 10:50 A.M.



This week’s CBS miniseries Hitler: The Rise of Evil tries to explain the conditions that enabled a manifestly evil and abnormal individual to gain total power and to commit mass murder. The CBS series looks at some of the people whose flawed decisions paved the way for Hitler’s psychopathic dictatorship: Hitler’s mother who refused to recognize that her child was extremely disturbed and anti-social; the judge who gave Hitler a ludicrously short prison sentence after he committed high treason at the Beer Hall Putsch; President Hindenburg and the Reichstag delegates who (except for the Social Democrats) who acceded to Hitler’s dictatorial Enabling Act rather than forcing a crisis (which, no matter how bad the outcome, would have been far better than Hitler being able to claim legitimate power and lead Germany toward world war).

Acquainting a new generation of television viewers with the monstrosity of Hitler is a commendable public service by CBS, for if we are serious about “Never again,” then we must be serious about remembering how and why Hitler was able to accomplish what he did. Political scientist R. J. Rummel, the world’s foremost scholar of the mass murders of the 20th century, estimates that the Nazis killed about 21 million people, not including war casualties. With modern technology, a modern Hitler might be able to kill even more people even more rapidly.

Indeed, right now in Zimbabwe, the Robert Mugabe tyranny is perpetrating a genocide by starvation aimed at liquidating about six million people. Mugabe is great admirer of Adolf Hitler. Mugabe’s number-two man (who died last year) was Chenjerai Hunzvi, the head of Mugabe’s terrorist gangs, who nicknamed himself “Hitler.” One of the things that Robert Mugabe, “Hitler” Hunzvi, and Adolf Hitler all have in common is their strong and effective programs of gun control.

Simply put, if not for gun control, Hitler would not have been able to murder 21 million people. Nor would Mugabe be able to carry out his current terror program.

Writing in The Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Stephen Halbrook demonstrates that German Jews and other German opponents of Hitler were not destined to be helpless and passive victims. (A magazine article by Halbrook offers a shorter version of the story, along with numerous photographs. Halbrook’s Arizona article is also available as a chapter in the book Death by Gun Control, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.) Halbrook details how, upon assuming power, the Nazis relentlessly and ruthlessly disarmed their German opponents. The Nazis feared the Jews — many of whom were front-line veterans of World War One — so much that Jews were even disarmed of knives and old sabers.

The Nazis did not create any new firearms laws until 1938. Before then, they were able to use the Weimar Republic’s gun controls to ensure that there would be no internal resistance to the Hitler regime.

In 1919, facing political and economic chaos and possible Communist revolution after Germany’s defeat in the First World War, the Weimar Republic enacted the Regulation of the Council of the People’s Delegates on Weapons Possession. The new law banned the civilian possession of all firearms and ammunition, and demanded their surrender “immediately.”

Once the political and economic situation stabilized, the Weimar Republic created a less draconian gun-control law. The law was similar to, although somewhat milder than, the gun laws currently demanded by the American gun-control lobby.

The Weimar Law on Firearms and Ammunition required a license to engage in any type of firearm business. A special license from the police was needed to either purchase or carry a firearm. The German police were granted complete discretion to deny licenses to criminals or individuals the police deemed untrustworthy. Unlimited police discretion over citizen gun acquisition is the foundation of the “Brady II” proposal introduced by Handgun Control, Inc., (now called the Brady Campaign) in 1994.

Under the Weimar law, no license was needed to possess a firearm in the home unless the citizen owned more than five guns of a particular type or stored more than 100 cartridges. The law’s requirements were more relaxed for firearms of a “hunting” or “sporting” type. Indeed, the Weimar statute was the world’s first gun law to create a formal distinction between sporting and non-sporting firearms. On the issues of home gun possession and sporting guns, the Weimar law was not as stringent as the current Massachusetts gun law, or some of modern proposals supported by American gun-control lobbyists.

Significantly, the Weimar law required the registration of most lawfully owned firearms, as do the laws of some American states. In Germany, the Weimar registration program law provided the information which the Nazis needed to disarm the Jews and others considered untrustworthy.

The Nazi disarmament campaign that began as soon as Hitler assumed power in 1933. While some genocidal governments (such as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia) dispensed with lawmaking, the Nazi government followed the German predilection for the creation of large volumes of written rules and regulations. Yet it was not until March 1938 (the same month that Hitler annexed Austria in the Anschluss) that the Nazis created their own Weapons Law. The new law formalized what had been the policy imposed by Hitler using the Weimar Law: Jews were prohibited from any involvement in any firearm business.

On November 9, 1938, the Nazis launched the Kristallnacht, pogrom, and unarmed Jews all over Germany were attacked by government-sponsored mobs. In conjunction with Kristallnacht, the government used the administrative authority of the 1938 Weapons Law to require immediate Jewish surrender of all firearms and edged weapons, and to mandate a sentence of death or 20 years in a concentration camp for any violation.

Even after 1938, the German gun laws were not prohibitory. They simply gave the government enough information and enough discretion to ensure that victims inside Germany would not be able to fight back.

Under the Hitler regime, the Germans had created a superbly trained and very large military — the most powerful military the world had ever seen until then. Man-for-man, the Nazis had greater combat effectiveness than every other army in World War II, and were finally defeated because of the overwhelming size of the Allied armies and the immensely larger economic resources of the Allies.

Despite having an extremely powerful army, the Nazis still feared the civilian possession of firearms by hostile civilians. Events in 1943 proved that the fear was not mere paranoia. As knowledge of the death camps leaked out, determined Jews rose up in arms in Tuchin, Warsaw, Bialystok, Vilna, and elsewhere. Jews also joined partisan armies in Eastern Europe in large numbers, and amazingly, even organized escapes and revolts in the killing centers of Treblinka and Auschwitz. There are many books which recount these heroic stories of resistance. Yuri Suhl’s They Fought Back (1967) is a good summary showing that hundreds of thousands of Jews did fight. The book Escape from Sobibor and the eponymous movie (1987) tell the amazing story how Russian Jewish prisoners of war organized a revolt that permanently destroyed one of the main death camps.

It took the Nazis months to destroy the Jews who rose up in the Warsaw ghetto, who at first were armed with only a few firearms that had been purchased on the black market, stolen or obtained from the Polish underground.

Halbrook contends that the history of Germany might have been changed if more of its citizens had been armed, and if the right to bear arms had been enshrined it Germany’s culture and constitution. Halbrook points out that while resistance took place in many parts of occupied Europe, there was almost no resistance in Germany itself, because the Nazis had enjoyed years in which they could enforce the gun laws to ensure that no potential opponent of the regime had the means to resist.

No one can foresee with certainty which countries will succumb to genocidal dictatorship. Germany under the Weimar Republic was a democracy in a nation with a very long history of much greater tolerance for Jews than existed in France, England, or Russia, or almost anywhere else. Zimbabwe’s current gun laws were created when the nation was the British colony of Rhodesia, and the authors of those laws did not know that the laws would one day be enforced by an African Hitler bent on mass extermination.

One never knows if one will need a fire extinguisher. Many people go their whole lives without needing to use a fire extinguisher, and most people never need firearms to resist genocide. But if you don’t prepare to have a life-saving tool on hand during an unexpected emergency, then you and your family may not survive.

In the book Children of the Flames, Auschwitz survivor Menashe Lorinczi recounts what happened when the Soviet army liberated the camp: the Russians disarmed the SS guards. Then, two emaciated Jewish inmates, now armed with guns taken from the SS, systematically exacted their revenge on a large formation of SS men. The disarmed SS passively accepted their fate. After Lorinczi moved to Israel, he was often asked by other Israelis why the Jews had not fought back against the Germans. He replied that many Jews did fight. He then recalled the sudden change in the behavior of the Jews and the Germans at Auschwitz, once the Russian army’s new “gun control” policy changed who had the guns there: “And today, when I am asked that question, I tell people it doesn’t matter whether you’re Hungarian, Polish, Jewish, or German: If you don’t have a gun, you have nothing.”
 
That's what happened to the Jews. They were mostly disarmed...the one's that still had them were the one's they targeted first.

That god damned Barack Anti-Christ Obama must be stopped.


Edit: Oh and what in the world would small arms, hell even automatic weapons do against our gov't?
 
Please. That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

I hate to break this to you, but the second amendment was written hundreds of years ago when the threat of invasion from another country was realistic and the concept that a group of people could band together and overthrow a tyrannical government regime wasn't laughable. The implications of the second amendment have almost no bearing on modern society, when the idea of another country legitimately invading ours is laughable at the worst of times and the idea that any of us would stand a chance with semi-automatic assault rifles against a United States army that has tanks, drones, and all manner of other hilariously deadly weaponry is downright ludicrous.

If the government ever wants to take full control of every part of our lives, they can do it at any fucking time they want and we'd be powerless to stop them. If you think the fact that the citizens have laughably under-powered weaponry would even be a momentary deterrent to a regime with that mindset well, then I really don't know what to tell you. We need to stop pretending that we live in the same world as when the constitution was written. We don't. We've changed aspects of it before and we surely will again. Simply using the second amendment as an argument for allowing people to keep their guns is an idiotic argument at the best of times.

And that's not saying that we should outlaw guns. It's saying that using a document written hundreds of years ago to defend the average citizen's right to own a Glock is moronic.

We owe it to ourselves to create better, safer gun laws that protect the citizens of this country. Right now, the laws we have clearly aren't working well enough, and that alone should be a sign that things need to changed.


There's a reason we have an Electromagnetic Pulse Commission. An EMP would render anything with electronics or a computer chip useless...jets, tanks, missiles, drones, cars, phones, etc. It would knock any impacted area back into the stoneage. Or if China or someone figures out a way to take down the grid with a cyberattack, our military and law enforcement would deteriorate pretty quickly. At that point it's every man for himself. I should have the right at that point to defend my castle. There are no guarantees anymore. Even if there's a complete financial collapse, law enforcement and military won't be able to control everyone...it will get extremely ugly within a few weeks. Dialing 911 will be useless.

So i'm not really worried about the US government "taking over every part of our lives"...i'm worried about them not being able to defend me in a time of crisis. Call people moronic, idiotic and everything else you want, but with our country teetering on financial collapse anything is possible. With every part of our country controlled by electronics anything is possible. A 16 year old Chinese hacker is now more dangerous than a team of Navy Seals. Everything is controlled by electronics...everything is linked. If someone takes down the grid with a cyberattack or EMP, we're screwed. We will all turn on each other within weeks, fighting to feed our families and stay alive. There's 311,000,000 of us...the one's with guns will last MUCH longer than those without them.

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/108529" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



So when you say that "The implications of the second amendment have almost no bearing on modern society", I think you are being very naive....even moronic/idiotic.
 
There's a reason we have an Electromagnetic Pulse Commission. An EMP would render anything with electronics or a computer chip useless...jets, tanks, missiles, drones, cars, phones, etc. It would knock any impacted area back into the stoneage. Or if China or someone figures out a way to take down the grid with a cyberattack, our military and law enforcement would deteriorate pretty quickly. At that point it's every man for himself. I should have the right at that point to defend my castle. There are no guarantees anymore. Even if there's a complete financial collapse, law enforcement and military won't be able to control everyone...it will get extremely ugly within a few weeks. Dialing 911 will be useless.

So i'm not really worried about the US government "taking over every part of our lives"...i'm worried about them not being able to defend me in a time of crisis. Call people moronic, idiotic and everything else you want, but with our country teetering on financial collapse anything is possible. With every part of our country controlled by electronics anything is possible. A 16 year old Chinese hacker is now more dangerous than a team of Navy Seals. Everything is controlled by electronics...everything is linked. If someone takes down the grid with a cyberattack or EMP, we're screwed. We will all turn on each other within weeks, fighting to feed our families and stay alive. There's 311,000,000 of us...the one's with guns will last MUCH longer than those without them.

Do you guys really live in that kind of fear on a day to day basis?
 
I dont understand how you can control that, unless you live your life expecting everyone to attack you? I'm not saying you're wrong i just dont understand and interested in the debate

I live my life knowing anyone could attack me at any moment. Yes. I do.
 
UK is a welfare state and the US is not. Ignorance and self-entitlement are rampant in the USA.

I think that has just as much impact on intentional homicides as gun control.

Thank you for such insight. People continue to look at the weapon itself rather than our ideologies, our methods of education, and our self worth.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top