OT: Safety is an Illusion

[KIBU]

Unfortunately, distraction arguments is the name of the game for these pro-gun people. They imagine of Hitler coming back, while that risk is probably only significant in their imaginary head. On the other hand, they turn blind eyes on the reality of gun related deaths. These arguments seems to work and they believe it.

I still don’t know how they can argue themselves to go against sensible background checks that would prevent mental, violent, criminals from getting guns as easy as it is now.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

SK: On your final point, we agree. Hitler did effectively disarm Germany, though, and it was a calculated maneuver. That is important to remember because it’s an object lesson in power and speaks to KIBU’s utterly nonsensical point above, as well as exposes a glaring lack of historical knowledge, both as to American history and world history.

The heart of CAR’s contention was correct and “prior to” the war doesn’t just mean 1938.

People on both sides of the debate traffic in hysteria, distorted “facts” and utter stupidity.

And, no, SK, I’m not directing that comment at you. You remain one of the few fact-based commenters still here, which is why I responded to your initial post on this topic.

[KIBU]

Pieces of history applied in a hallucinating way not related to reality is as disingenuous as one can be. It serves the purpose of misleading the people in the name of “history”.

If one knows about history, one ought to know that little overuse trick.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

KIBU: I don’t even know what “pieces of history applied in a hallucinating way” even means.

I do know this, however: As you sit tapping away at your keyboard, you reside in what is now one of the most intrusive national security states in modern history (I’m presuming you’re in the United States). This isn’t paranoia, mind you, it’s established fact. So we’re not talking about Hitler, but rather the lessons of history and how they tend to repeat themselves.

You seem either blissfully unaware of this, or in support of it, based on your willingness to arrogate even more power to a government that maintains a kill list of American “enemies”, has already killed an American on foreign soil and engages in unrestricted drone warfare. We won’t go into AUMF, NDAA, or the laundry list of “laws” that do nothing to protect your security and everything to rob you of your essential liberties.

Do I have a problem with commonsense regulations like a universal background check. Absolutely not (as long as it does not include a federal registry). I am all for any and all regulations that prevent gun deaths and increase gun safety. I am, however, very wary of any politicians that make abolishment of my gun rights a stated priority. You need look no further than Miz Pelosi for such an example.

I don’t own an assault rifle and never have, nor do I have plans to own one. I do, however, own weapons that, in my hands, could be considered exceptionally lethal (training for which came courtesy of the US Army), but don’t fall under the assault weapons category. My point? Every firearm is potentially an assault weapon, but personal responsibility matters far more to me in terms of safety than an overweening and intrusive federal government telling me what I can or cannot own.

Spare me your lessons on history, as it appears you’re unable to even see what surrounds you now, in the “land of the free”.

[all]

It’s good to see a post by Allan again, regardless of the content.

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV]Allen, I didn’t rebut my own argument. I was responding to “Because, in the early stages and prior to the war, Hitler and others decided that the people needed to be disarmed “for their own safety.” It wasn’t the early stages. It was a year before WWII started. And it didn’t apply in Austria, yet Austria was annexed, even though they had guns. The Czechs had guns, yet in Sudetenland that didn’t matter. As did Hungary and Poland. My point was, and it remains, claiming that Hitler took the guns and then everything else happened is simply inconsistent with history. It didn’t happen that way. And as with most anti-gun control rhetoric, using gun control in Germany as pertinent history to bolster anti-gun policy here is not only counter-factual, it’s disingenuous.[/quote]

SK,

I’m talking about the first-hand accounts from people who were actually living there at the time. You can read all the history books you want, but what I’m talking about is what real people actually lived through, and it’s absolutely factual.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]
SK,

I’m talking about the first-hand accounts from people who were actually living there at the time. You can read all the history books you want, but what I’m talking about is what real people actually lived through, and it’s absolutely factual.[/quote]

I’ve heard those first hand accounts. Scores of them, since I was a child, and as recently as a month ago. Irrespective of what either of us heard, the taking of guns wasn’t the beginning of anything. And even before the relaxing of the gun laws in 1938 (except for whoever you heard those first hand stories from, and my relatives), registration had been required to own and acquire guns for almost 2 decades.

And probably more importantly, the proposals that didn’t get passed wouldn’t take any guns away from anyone. There’s a big difference between background checks and confiscation.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=all]It’s good to see a post by Allan again, regardless of the content.[/quote]

Thanks.

I think.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

SK: Entirely correct that registration and confiscation are worlds apart, making the Senate vote all the more mystifying. Given Obama’s jawboning on the topic and nearly unanimous public support (polling over 90% positive), you would think that it would have breezed through. Not so. Which now raises the wider question of “Why?”. Those 2014 midterms are looming ever closer.

[SK in CV]

I’ll go with two reason.

The intransigence of almost all republicans in the senate. If Obama wants it, he can’t have it. It doesn’t matter what their own constituents want. (fer chrissakes, background checks have 72% support in friggen Alabama.)

The absolute terror that most republicans and a handful of dem senators have for the NRA. (there is no possible other explanation for Heitkamp’s vote, her lie of an explanation notwithstanding.)

And a bonus third reason. Complete ineffectiveness of dem leadership from both Reid and Obama.

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
SK,

I’m talking about the first-hand accounts from people who were actually living there at the time. You can read all the history books you want, but what I’m talking about is what real people actually lived through, and it’s absolutely factual.[/quote]

I’ve heard those first hand accounts. Scores of them, since I was a child, and as recently as a month ago. Irrespective of what either of us heard, the taking of guns wasn’t the beginning of anything. And even before the relaxing of the gun laws in 1938 (except for whoever you heard those first hand stories from, and my relatives), registration had been required to own and acquire guns for almost 2 decades.

And probably more importantly, the proposals that didn’t get passed wouldn’t take any guns away from anyone. There’s a big difference between background checks and confiscation.[/quote]

SK,

Yes, I’m aware of the gun laws under the Weimar Republic and the conditions set forth in the Treaty of Versailles, but Hitler extended those laws. Hitler also disarmed anyone who publicly disagreed with him and/or who posed any kind of threat to his regime.

Many of us would argue that the Second Amendment was written to *specifically* protect the gun rights of those who disagree with those in power. That’s exactly the point.

There is only one reason for a government to want to disarm the masses: fear of revolution. The cause of revolutions throughout history has been the gross imbalance of power and wealth. Look around at what’s going on, not just here, but around the world. The wealth/income/power inequality is growing everywhere, and THIS is why we are hearing so much about gun control, IMHO.

edit:

As far as our relatives’ stories (and corroborating stories from their friends who lived through it with them), do you think they are lying to us?

And, as I mentioned above, background checks make sense, but how do we prevent this information from becoming a form of registration? And how does the registration of guns prevent crime?

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]
There is only one reason for a government to want to disarm the masses: fear of revolution. The cause of revolutions throughout history has been the gross imbalance of power and wealth. [/quote]

Who has proposed this? It’s a straw man argument.

The federal government does not need registration to know who has a gun. All they have to do is ask google and get 90% of gun owners.

[all]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=all]It’s good to see a post by Allan again, regardless of the content.[/quote]

Thanks.

I think.[/quote]

It was a compliment 🙂

I did not have time to read through the recent posts. I was just happy to see your handle on the page. I might not agree with you on some issues, but I always like the style and depth of your posts and how you engage some other smart people on this board.

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
There is only one reason for a government to want to disarm the masses: fear of revolution. The cause of revolutions throughout history has been the gross imbalance of power and wealth. [/quote]

Who has proposed this? It’s a straw man argument.

The federal government does not need registration to know who has a gun. All they have to do is ask google and get 90% of gun owners.[/quote]

Registration makes it much easier to disarm the masses, and you know that.

Yes, technology can be used for nefarious purposes, which is why I’m very opposed to a lot of the most recent advances WRT “spy” technology, public surveillance, and government-owned or controlled data storage systems. It’s also one of the reasons we don’t have smartphones (every little bit helps!).

[CA renter]

[quote=all][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=all]It’s good to see a post by Allan again, regardless of the content.[/quote]

Thanks.

I think.[/quote]

It was a compliment 🙂

I did not have time to read through the recent posts. I was just happy to see your handle on the page. I might not agree with you on some issues, but I always like the style and depth of your posts and how you engage some other smart people on this board.[/quote]

X2

I’ve always enjoyed Allan’s posts, even when I’m on the opposing side! 🙂

Hope you stick around, Allan.

[Author]

Posts