Gun control in the U.S. is working... we need to push for more gun control

[GarfieldtheCat]

Your response to the reason for gun ownership was the most ridiculous response I have ever seen.

You: 1 plus 1 one equals 3.
Guy 1: 1 plus 1 equals 2.
You: How would I know? What relevance does this even have?

Reading comprehension fail on your part.

Nick1985 said that one reason for an armed civilian population is to deter other countries from invading. I called BS on that statement, since I have never heard of a country NOT invading another because of an armed civilian population. It just doesn't happen in modern times. He tried to pull out partisan movements as an example, but of course those countries were already successfully invaded, which made his attempted point totally wrong.

Nick1985 didn't have anything else to refute my point, so tried to go off on a tangent about what the Nazi's did, which as I pointed out, had NOTHING to do with his premise that an armed civilian popluation will stop an invasion.

So why don't you explain how the disgusting things the Nazi's did somehow is related to showing that an armed civilian population will PREVENT an invasion. Or admit you misread my comments, either way.

 

[Venix]

Reading comprehension fail on your part.

Nick1985 said that one reason for an armed civilian population is to deter other countries from invading. I called BS on that statement, since I have never heard of a country NOT invading another because of an armed civilian population. It just doesn't happen in modern times. He tried to pull out partisan movements as an example, but of course those countries were already successfully invaded, which made his attempted point totally wrong.

Nick1985 didn't have anything else to refute my point, so tried to go off on a tangent about what the Nazi's did, which as I pointed out, had NOTHING to do with his premise that an armed civilian popluation will stop an invasion.

So why don't you explain how the disgusting things the Nazi's did somehow is related to showing that an armed civilian population will PREVENT an invasion. Or admit you misread my comments, either way.

Exactly how would you ever even know why a country decided not to invade another? Are you seriously suggesting that a country would freely admit that it would invade its neighbor but for its armed populace?

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

Reading comprehension fail on your part.

Nick1985 said that one reason for an armed civilian population is to deter other countries from invading. I called BS on that statement, since I have never heard of a country NOT invading another because of an armed civilian population. It just doesn't happen in modern times. He tried to pull out partisan movements as an example, but of course those countries were already successfully invaded, which made his attempted point totally wrong.

Nick1985 didn't have anything else to refute my point, so tried to go off on a tangent about what the Nazi's did, which as I pointed out, had NOTHING to do with his premise that an armed civilian popluation will stop an invasion.

So why don't you explain how the disgusting things the Nazi's did somehow is related to showing that an armed civilian population will PREVENT an invasion. Or admit you misread my comments, either way.

Holy history fail, Batman!

Country not invaded because of the ability to own guns: United States, WW2. Japan touched the lightest population density state in the union and gave up. We fended off the 2nd greatest army in the world and the most successful without raising a finger in anger.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II.

November 11, 1938 Germany created a law banning Jews, those under 18, and anyone by choice not in the Nazi party from owning guns. BTW, if you were black, gay, Jewish, crippled, etc you weren't a Nazi party member. The moment a person gave up their guns or had their guns taken they were shipped off and killed.

BTW this law was copied into English, minus the Jewish part, by Joe Kennedy (supporter of the Third Reich and their extermination of Jews, and later a supporter of McCarthyism) and sidekick Chris Dodd and passed into law in the United States. In order to haul off all your political enemies, you track all their gun purchases (ban most of them) and demonize them.

He probably didn't feel like explaining it all to you when you were so ungodly obviously wrong. I assume that since you didn't know these things that you know nothing of gun control history or WW2. Also, for future reference, a show of power and balance of power prevents violence between countries. An army doesn't attack unless they think they can win.

 

[Venix]

Holy history fail, Batman!

Country not invaded because of the ability to own guns: United States, WW2. Japan touched the lightest population density state in the union and gave up. We fended off the 2nd greatest army in the world and the most successful without raising a finger in anger.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II.

This quotation is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus": http://factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

November 11, 1938 Germany created a law banning Jews, those under 18, and anyone by choice not in the Nazi party from owning guns. BTW, if you were black, gay, Jewish, crippled, etc you weren't a Nazi party member. The moment a person gave up their guns or had their guns taken they were shipped off and killed.

BTW this law was copied into English, minus the Jewish part, by Joe Kennedy (supporter of the Third Reich and their extermination of Jews, and later a supporter of McCarthyism) and sidekick Chris Dodd and passed into law in the United States. In order to haul off all your political enemies, you track all their gun purchases (ban most of them) and demonize them.

Erroneous on multiple counts.

1) The 1938 German Weapons Act lowered the age at which a person could own a gun to 18. It was previously 20.
2) Firearms carry permits were already required by Weimar Republic firearms laws, but required renewal every year. The new law increased that time to three years.
3) The new law exempted NSDAP members, government workers and holders of hunting permits from the permit requirements. Non-party members could certainly own weapons, but still required permits.
4) Long gun ownership was completely deregulated. The new law applied only to handguns, whereas its Weimar Republic precursor also covered long guns.
5) Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons was passed on November 11. The 1938 German Weapons Act was enacted in March.

To summarize: Hitler's "gun control" law actually reduced the restrictions on firearms ownership that were enacted by the Weimar Republic. Consequently, any alleged similarity between the Gun Control Act of 1968 and German weapons laws has fuck all to do with Hitler. But I guess that "US federal gun control is a weaker version of the Weimar Republic's gun laws" isn't as compelling an argument.

I strongly oppose gun control, but just as strongly oppose bullshit arguments regardless of who makes them.

 

[flavio]

Wow, impressive work there Venix.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Exactly how would you ever even know why a country decided not to invade another? Are you seriously suggesting that a country would freely admit that it would invade its neighbor but for its armed populace?

No, nick1985 is saying that. I am saying that is BS.

I have never read about a country that didn't invade for fear of it's civilian population. Military, sure. But not civilian. It's a total BS claim, and you will note that nick1985 has given up trying to defend his claim.

 

[nick1985]

No, nick1985 is saying that. I am saying that is BS.

I have never read about a country that didn't invade for fear of it's civilian population. Military, sure. But not civilian. It's a total BS claim, and you will note that nick1985 has given up trying to defend his claim.

Um, how would you know that a nation didnt invade another nation due to fear of a heavily armed civilian population? To suggest that its never happened once time in human history is silly. Trying to prove something that never took place is a little difficult.

One of the reasons why they decided to nuke Japan was because the civilian population was armed and ready to fight to the death.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Holy history fail, Batman!

Country not invaded because of the ability to own guns: United States, WW2. Japan touched the lightest population density state in the union and gave up. We fended off the 2nd greatest army in the world and the most successful without raising a finger in anger.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II.

November 11, 1938 Germany created a law banning Jews, those under 18, and anyone by choice not in the Nazi party from owning guns. BTW, if you were black, gay, Jewish, crippled, etc you weren't a Nazi party member. The moment a person gave up their guns or had their guns taken they were shipped off and killed.

BTW this law was copied into English, minus the Jewish part, by Joe Kennedy (supporter of the Third Reich and their extermination of Jews, and later a supporter of McCarthyism) and sidekick Chris Dodd and passed into law in the United States. In order to haul off all your political enemies, you track all their gun purchases (ban most of them) and demonize them.

He probably didn't feel like explaining it all to you when you were so ungodly obviously wrong. I assume that since you didn't know these things that you know nothing of gun control history or WW2. Also, for future reference, a show of power and balance of power prevents violence between countries. An army doesn't attack unless they think they can win.

Oh please, one quote from someone doesn't prove anything. If you actually READ about these things, you would realize the IJN had to be held back from doing a lot of things by the IJA, because the Japanese Army correctly realized that LOGISTICS prevented even invading (and keeping) the Hawaiian islands, let alone the mainland of the US. And many other things as well, like how the IJN wanted to invade Australia, which was also logistically impossible.

So again, please explain how Germany killing its own population in any way shows that an armed civilian population stopped Germany from invading. Please do show us the proof. We will be waiting.

Because you don't get it at all. The bullshit that nick1985 posted, saying that civilians having guns would stop an invasion. Germany successfully conquered all it's countries it invaded, except one, the USSR, and that was stopped my the Red army, not a bunch of civilians with guns. And again, even nick1985 has given up trying to defend it, since I guess he realized it was wrong.

So you don't even know what you are arguing about, let alone doing a good job of it. So please explain how Germany didn't invade a country. Go on and prove us wrong. Or apologize and admit you are wrong. Your call. But coming in the middle of a thread without even reading what is being posted shows a lack of understanding on your part.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Um, how would you know that a nation didnt invade another nation due to fear of a heavily armed civilian population? To suggest that its never happened once time in human history is silly. Trying to prove something that never took place is a little difficult.

One of the reasons why they decided to nuke Japan was because the civilian population was armed and ready to fight to the death.

You made the claim, you back it up. I called BS. It's a stupid concept nowadays, and you know it. Back 200 years ago, when everyone had the same muskets as weapons, it made sense, but now, with armor, air power, and the like, no country is going to be deterred by a bunch of people with pistols and rifles. Sorry if you can't admit to the obvious.

So what does Germany have to do with your claim? Answer: Nothing. So why did you post it.

And if we didn't have the atomic bomb, we would have invaded (read about operation downfall). So that example doesn't prove your claim either.

 

[nick1985]

Because you don't get it at all. The bullshit that nick1985 posted, saying that civilians having guns would stop an invasion. Germany successfully conquered all it's countries it invaded, except one, the USSR, and that was stopped my the Red army, not a bunch of civilians with guns. And again, even nick1985 has given up trying to defend it, since I guess he realized it was wrong.

So you disagree that Russican civilians didnt play a HUGE role in thwarting the german invasion?


Read up on some history. Also, Marshal Tito's partisans of Yugoslavia had tens of thousands of German soldiers tied down. Not bad for some farmers with some guns.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Oh please, one quote from someone doesn't prove anything. If you actually READ about these things, you would realize the IJN had to be held back from doing a lot of things by the IJA, because the Japanese Army correctly realized that LOGISTICS prevented even invading (and keeping) the Hawaiian islands, let alone the mainland of the US. And many other things as well, like how the IJN wanted to invade Australia, which was also logistically impossible.

So again, please explain how Germany killing its own population in any way shows that an armed civilian population stopped Germany from invading. Please do show us the proof. We will be waiting.

Because you don't get it at all. The bullshit that nick1985 posted, saying that civilians having guns would stop an invasion. Germany successfully conquered all it's countries it invaded, except one, the USSR, and that was stopped my the Red army, not a bunch of civilians with guns. And again, even nick1985 has given up trying to defend it, since I guess he realized it was wrong.

So you don't even know what you are arguing about, let alone doing a good job of it. So please explain how Germany didn't invade a country. Go on and prove us wrong. Or apologize and admit you are wrong. Your call. But coming in the middle of a thread without even reading what is being posted shows a lack of understanding on your part.

You are absolutely, EXACTLY wrong.

Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Advising Japan's military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns.

The major resistances in many modern invasions have been private citizens with private weapons. Russian resistance was most fierce from militia, not red army (which was spread thin and previously decimated). The nations with widespread private arms holdings have always been the most difficult to conquer.

I'm not saying other things didn't or wouldn't factor in, but private arms are a MAJOR concern to an occupying force. Every hunting rifle is a sniper killing millions of dollars worth of trained recruits. Every housewife with a bottle of bleach and ammonia is a chemical weapon attack behind held lines. Every pistol is a concealed weapon against prime political targets. Military ordinance is not particularly decisive in occupations...private arms are.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

This quotation is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus": http://factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto

Factcheck.org. I'm willing to believe that isn't a true quote, but not from them. They are as biased a source as I've ever seen. Maybe if you quoted www.thejapanesewererighttoattackpearlharbor.com I'd have an easier time believing it.

Erroneous on multiple counts.

1) The 1938 German Weapons Act lowered the age at which a person could own a gun to 18. It was previously 20.
2) Firearms carry permits were already required by Weimar Republic firearms laws, but required renewal every year. The new law increased that time to three years.
3) The new law exempted NSDAP members, government workers and holders of hunting permits from the permit requirements. Non-party members could certainly own weapons, but still required permits.
4) Long gun ownership was completely deregulated. The new law applied only to handguns, whereas its Weimar Republic precursor also covered long guns.
5) Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons was passed on November 11. The 1938 German Weapons Act was enacted in March.

1) didnt say they raised it, thanks for lying
2) so it was more restrictive, shocking
3) that's pretty much the whole point of it, to kill the people that aren't party members
4) sweet
5) Didn't know that, sorry. Next time I think of attaching a date to something, I won't. I fail at it. Names too.

To summarize: Hitler's "gun control" law actually reduced the restrictions on firearms ownership that were enacted by the Weimar Republic.

Wow, that was an outright lie. You knew that was a lie when you typed it. Making it so that the chosen few have full access to guns and nobody else does is reducing gun restriction? It's just making selective enforcement a forced issue instead of a decision.

Consequently, any alleged similarity between the Gun Control Act of 1968 and German weapons laws has fuck all to do with Hitler. But I guess that "US federal gun control is a weaker version of the Weimar Republic's gun laws" isn't as compelling an argument.

Consequence of what? Did you delete something and leave the "consequently" in there by accident? And what's the connection to Hitler have to do with anything? The connection to fascism and genocide is enough.

 

[ShawnD1]

I have never read about a country that didn't invade for fear of it's civilian population. Military, sure. But not civilian. It's a total BS claim, and you will note that nick1985 has given up trying to defend his claim.

Switzerland was one of the very few countries in Europe not attacked during WW2. While Hitler didn't much care for the Swiss, he made no attempt to attack the Swiss because they did not pose much of a military threat. Trying to invade and occupy it would be infeasible because every house is required to have a gun. The Germans went around it while there were more important things to do.

 

[Venix]

Factcheck.org. I'm willing to believe that isn't a true quote, but not from them. They are as biased a source as I've ever seen. Maybe if you quoted www.thejapanesewererighttoattackpearlharbor.com I'd have an easier time believing it.

factcheck.org is simply quoting Donald Goldstein, a respected World War II historian. Are you suggesting that Professor Goldstein is wrong, or that factcheck.org is lying about talking to him?

In any case, you're the one claiming that the fabricated quotation is real, so the burden of proof is on you. Please provide a source explaining where and when Yamamoto wrote or said this.

Wow, that was an outright lie. You knew that was a lie when you typed it. Making it so that the chosen few have full access to guns and nobody else does is reducing gun restriction? It's just making selective enforcement a forced issue instead of a decision.

Under the Weimar Republic's 1928 German Weapons Law, everyone (except government employees and railway workers) was already required to acquire a weapons permit to own firearms. Hitler's law merely removed that restriction for party members and hunters, and significantly reduced restrictions for everyone else, including completely deregulating ownership of rifles and shotguns and lowering the age at which a person could own a weapon.

Anyone who isn't a complete idiot would classify that as "reducing gun restrictions." The only increased restriction was the banning of Jews from owning firearms.

Consequence of what? Did you delete something and leave the "consequently" in there by accident? And what's the connection to Hitler have to do with anything? The connection to fascism and genocide is enough.

All the firearms laws in place in Nazi Germany were enacted by the Weimar Republic, which was neither fascist nor participated in any genocide. Hitler's law merely amended and largely relaxed the Weimar Republic's restrictions.

"The Nazis had a similar law, therefore this US law is bad" is a lame and intellectually lazy argument anyway. The Gun Control Act of 1968 is a shit law, but attacking it because of some imagined ties to Nazism is ridiculous.

 

[flavio]

You are absolutely, EXACTLY wrong.

Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Advising Japan's military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns.

Wow, you quoted Yamamoto even after it had been debunked a few posts up.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Wow, you quoted Yamamoto even after it had been debunked a few posts up.

I missed that one, but am honestly shocked. That's the first I've ever heard of it being potentially false. Looks like I have a new project. *off to the archives*

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

So again, please explain how Germany killing its own population in any way shows that an armed civilian population stopped Germany from invading. Please do show us the proof. We will be waiting.

Never said that, didn't read on any further because you're just trolling. Nothing you've said thus far has even made sense. You just change the subject. hit and runned

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

So you disagree that Russican civilians didnt play a HUGE role in thwarting the german invasion?


Read up on some history. Also, Marshal Tito's partisans of Yugoslavia had tens of thousands of German soldiers tied down. Not bad for some farmers with some guns.

Why don't you stop moving the goalposts?

You said:

They want foreign countries to be afraid to attack us.

I replied:

And to nitpick, having foreign countries be afraid to attack us because of our personal weapons (as opposed to our military) is a bit ridiculous, especially in this day in age.

And you defended your point with this:

Its certainly something to consider. Look at history for the damage an armed populace can do to an invading army. Look at the Russian/Yugoslavian/Greek partisans of WWII.

If someone attacked someone else, they aren't exactly afraid, are they?

Yes, I believe I mentioned already that partisans can hurt an occupier, but they can't stop an invasion.

We must be arguing separate points, since you are arguing that civilians with weapons can hurt an occupier. Well duh, no kidding, that's obvious. But that isn't what you said first.

But what it doesn't mean is that a country is afraid to invade another because of it, which is what I am saying. That's BS. All your examples are of a conquered country, so no only did an armed civilian population not prevent an invasion, it also didn't stop the invasion either.

Now I agree 100% that partisans can hurt an occupier, but that is irrelevant to arguing that they won't invade because they are afraid. Just look at your examples, as well as (for modern day) Afghanistan. Their history of fighting the USSR didn't scare us into not invading, did it?

And on a philosophical note, I think that most partisan movements don't last long with just "civilian" weapons. They quickly move to using captured military weapons for both increased firepower and replenish ammunition. Not going to do much long-term with a bunch of pistols, hunting rifles and shotguns.