The wisdom and foresight of Tomfurbs and Trish here on H.A.

[SarahG]

Will allowing the populace easy access to firearms make anything safer? Look at the difference in crime between my country and yours. Then waffle on about the 'wisdom' of the founding fathers.

But if you are going to be that picky, then you have to account for the reason why other nations with similar guns per capital stats lack the American level of gun related violence. This indicates to me that guns are not the problem exclusively the way this sentence of yours implies.

There certainly are other differences between the UK & US outside of gun policy- and any attempt to explain away American violent crime problems on the basis of guns exclusively is, to say the least, grossly oversimplified.

[NYBURBS]

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

Yes but what that article fails to adequately point out is that Germany was essentially disarmed through the Treaty of Versailles, causing the government in the 1920's to essentially require that virtually all firearms be surrendered and then destroyed.

The Nazi's once in political control, enacted a firearms licensing program that allowed expanded possession of "trustworthy" persons whom could show a need. Exempt from the requirement to license a firearm were members of the Nazi Party, who were free to carry firearms unfettered by law. One of the groups that were explicitly refused the right to keep or bear arms were the Jews. I'm sure I don't need to enlighten you as to their fate.

It would be like removing all firearms in the United States (minus the government), and then having say the Republicans pass an act that allowed unfettered possession only by members of their party. It leaves everyone else powerless to defend themselves in the face of any type of oppression.

The argument in the article that Jews in Germany were not predisposed to violent resistance may be true, but that doesn't mean we should make that same mistake. For me this simply comes down to my unwillingness to entrust my freedom to the "benevolence" of others that wish to rule.

In a civilized society we should always strive for peaceful resolution of disputes. However, failing that peaceful resolution, I (and many others) prefer to reserve the right to maintain an ability to fight for our rights.

[SarahG]

One of the groups that were explicitly refused the right to keep or bear arms were the Jews. I'm sure I don't need to enlighten you as to their fate.

Not that it would have made a big difference for them.

If you're going to play with the numbers, you'll find that a great many of the Jewish settlements in Nazi Germany were, in some cases up to the end, in denial over the situation. Ever read Night by Wiesel? He mentions in his book that in the settlement he lived in, the people there refused to flea, resist or otherwise act in response to witnesses who warned of the mass murders- witnesses who had happened to flea from such incidents and (for the time) survive.

There were, without a doubt, some that did resist, just as was the case with the French civilian population during occupation, but this wasn't the majority of these groups.

The resistance and survival odds were additionally burdened by the Nazi's data mining & tracking organizations. Most people have no idea just how well tracked people were in Nazi Germany, those IBM punch card machines were used for more than tracking prisoners already in the concentration camp system. They also tracked, using available documents in occupied territories, the non-captured civilian population. The Nazi units responsible for roaming the countryside to capture jews knew precisely how many of a given demographic they were hunting for in a given location, they knew how many were supposed to be in a given town, and had a rough idea on who they were looking for- not in terms of appearance or broad perceptions of demographics- but by names listed in local & regional government records, religious records, and other sources.

I cannot safely say this was the first time computer databases were put together exclusively to know the exact location of its civilians, as a tool for extermination programs, but it very well could have been.

Anyone who is upset over gun control based on this "slippery slope oppression concern" need to also be significantly concerned about the use of data mining operations, and the use of even public-domain public records. Considering the chunk of Bush Admin support that comes from gun control opponents- people who with exceptions seem to give a free pass to domestic spying programs and similar computer database tracking systems when these programs do not have to do with gun ownership- show that they are picking and choosing what tools of oppression to care about. Thus, for many- oppression really isn't anything in this dialog but a foot note argument added for dramatic effect.

[muhmuh]

In the wake of the 7/7 bombings in London, armed Police from the Met chased down a suspect into the Tube and shot him in the head at point blank range in a crowded tube carriage.

not to forget that they shot him 11 times and managed to miss 3 times while shooting him in the head 7 times
certainly that was absolutely necessary and can easily be shown from the mysteriously absent cctv recordings

[NYBURBS]

Anyone who is upset over gun control based on this "slippery slope oppression concern" need to also be significantly concerned about the use of data mining operations, and the use of even public-domain public records. Considering the chunk of Bush Admin support that comes from gun control opponents- people who with exceptions seem to give a free pass to domestic spying programs and similar computer database tracking systems when these programs do not have to do with gun ownership- show that they are picking and choosing what tools of oppression to care about.

From a couple of posts back:

Second of all, and more importantly, is the notion that a disarmed populace is far more susceptible to takeover by a hostile government (no I am not holed up in my bomb shelter while writing this). However, one need only look to recent actions of our government to realize we are heading down a dangerous path i.e., refusing 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights to United States citizens it accuses of terrorist actions; along with the erosion of 4th amendment rights (telecom monitoring for example).

So I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that I just quoted. Data mining, both public and private is a serious issue. It probably requires some type of amendment to the Constitution, to forbid the keeping or trading of much of the data out there that companies collect. As it stands, the 4th Amendment is only applicable to the government, and as such data gathered by private entities, and placed in the public domain are free use for the gov't.

As I also spoke to in my earlier post, this arbitrary categorizing of persons or groups as terrorists, and then claiming a right to withhold specific rights from them, is a terrifying concept. Today it is the Islamic Fundamentalists, tomorrow it could be any number of other groups. This is not to say I am a fan of the jihadists (I have little use for them or their religious ideology), but I am certainly not willing to abdicate the rights of persons we accuse of crimes (especially our own citizens).

I am not one to drink the Kool-Aid of political parties nor do I have a loyalty to any one specific group. Political parties require that you be subservient to their entire agenda, whereas I can agree on specific issues with one group, but disagree with them on others.

To be quite frank, I have little use for much of the modern day republican party. It is now dominated by fringe segments that are either bent on an imperialistic foreign policy, or obsessed with applying a religious moral code upon society. Long lost is the idea of smaller government and more individual responsibility for the outcome of their own lives.

[SarahG]

So I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that I just quoted. Data mining, both public and private is a serious issue. It probably requires some type of amendment to the Constitution, to forbid the keeping or trading of much of the data out there that companies collect. As it stands, the 4th Amendment is only applicable to the government, and as such data gathered by private entities, and placed in the public domain are free use for the gov't.

As I also spoke to in my earlier post, this arbitrary categorizing of persons or groups as terrorists, and then claiming a right to withhold specific rights from them, is a terrifying concept. Today it is the Islamic Fundamentalists, tomorrow it could be any number of other groups. This is not to say I am a fan of the jihadists (I have little use for them or their religious ideology), but I am certainly not willing to abdicate the rights of persons we accuse of crimes (especially our own citizens).

I am not one to drink the Kool-Aid of political parties nor do I have a loyalty to any one specific group. Political parties require that you be subservient to their entire agenda, whereas I can agree on specific issues with one group, but disagree with them on others.

To be quite frank, I have little use for much of the modern day republican party. It is now dominated by fringe segments that are either bent on an imperialistic foreign policy, or obsessed with applying a religious moral code upon society. Long lost is the idea of smaller government and more individual responsibility for the outcome of their own lives.

My point wasn't about your positions. My point was referring to the majority of those who are active against gun control in America. Like I said there are exceptions, people who care about tools of oppression regardless who they're being used by, but this does not seem to be characteristic of a great many of the republican gun rights supporters- and most gun control opposition comes from republicans. sure there are gun ownership advocates in the democrat party, libertarian party and other groups- but I doubt they compare in number collectively.

[NYBURBS]

My point wasn't about your positions. My point was referring to the majority of those who are active against gun control in America. Like I said there are exceptions, people who care about tools of oppression regardless who they're being used by, but this does not seem to be characteristic of a great many of the republican gun rights supporters.

No you are right about that, which is why I went off on my little diatribe about political parties. You can see that in the "republicans suck" "democrats are all communists" postings on this and many other boards. It is unfortunate that most people feel the need to tow a party line just because someone else thinks they should.

We were warned long ago by some rather great minds about the dangers of party loyalty. Unfortunately as a society we have largely ignored those warnings.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

[SarahG]

My point wasn't about your positions. My point was referring to the majority of those who are active against gun control in America. Like I said there are exceptions, people who care about tools of oppression regardless who they're being used by, but this does not seem to be characteristic of a great many of the republican gun rights supporters.

No you are right about that, which is why I went off on my little diatribe about political parties. You can see that in the "republicans suck" "democrats are all communists" postings on this and many other boards. It is unfortunate that most people feel the need to tow a party line just because someone else thinks they should.

We were warned long ago by some rather great minds about the dangers of party loyalty. Unfortunately as a society we have largely ignored those warnings.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

I actually think parties work provided they are polar opposites in practice (not just ads) and there are only two of them with close to a 50/50 split in power. It is difficult for "interests" to get things they shouldn't have, when a majority on most issues is impossible. Our country would be all completely fucked up if constitutional amendments were easily within reach for interests. I am using the vague term interests intentionally because it refers to a desired change in policy- without going into detail on what makes up that interest, it could be anything from parties, lobbyists to large groupings of civilians with no organization but a common craving for the same piece of legislation.

When there are but two parties and they are virtually the same thing in practice (with most issues) then that changes things... especially when the people are sufficiently distracted by the few litmus test issues that separate the two party's maladaptive commonalities.

[NYBURBS]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one I think the two party set-up is the bane of our current political system. It discourages out-of-the-box ideas and solutions. Amendments would still require super majorities of both the Congress and States, so there's no reason to think that would become any easier.

I'm not advocating any type of legislation disallowing them, as that would be an affront to the right to association. I just hope that as we mature as a nation we might move away from this. However, term limits, and perhaps making it easier for people to get on ballots would be a welcome change.

[trish]

As I've stated in the pages above, I'm not against gun ownership or the 2nd Amendment. I am aware that a significant portion of gun related deaths and injuries are due merely to accidents. Consequently I do support gun controls (as described in this thread) that would reduce these needless tragedies. Even though I support the 2nd Amendment, I do not recommend that everyone go out and buy a gun. If you were thinking of buying one, or perhaps getting rid of the one you already have but are having trouble making up your mind, here's a little guide that may be of some service