Supreme Court ruled today on the D.C. gun ban

Gee, I sleep pretty well in spite of the fact that the dangerous Tomfurbs is out there...somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Gee, I sleep pretty well in spite of the fact that the dangerous Tomfurbs is out there...somewhere.

---

lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Now come on Brenda. Do you really think the three separate branches of the military are waiting in the wings to take over the instant the populace is disarmed? Do you really believe that “our rights are ONLY guaranteed by the implied threat” of our civilian arms? I know Tom seems to be arguing for a stronger case than I. I’m not against people owning firearms. I’m not saying a degradation and collapse of the U.S. government can never happen. But to contend that our current political stability is due ONLY to the threat of armed civilians is a misrepresentation that does us a disservice. Not only is it silly but it’s irresponsible to recommend that we all now arm ourselves for sake of political stability.

It’s also a bit disingenuous (don’t you think?) to claim:

Quote:

---

While I for one can see their points they cannot see ours.

---

I think Tom,Oli and I and others see and understand your arguments perfectly well. I don’t doubt that you understand Tom’s positions and arguments as well as mine (though I am beginning to doubt whether InHouston does). We do disagree on the weight that should be accorded various propositions. You claim to think Zimbabwe can happen here, next month. That it’s only armed civilians keeping the coup at bay. I understand those points. I just think they’re way overplayed and outlandishly overstated.

---

A democracy or republic rarely becomes all at once in a big coup. It does what it did in Wiemar Germany, or Republican Rome. It is a slow creep over years or generations. Slowly a free people sacrifice a right here, a villagers there, all for the sake of security or money. Then somewhere down the road comes Ceasar and his legions and instead of being opposed by the people they are welcomed as they cross the Rubicon. So starts the events that lead to the total acceptance of virtual one man rule by Octavian Augustus, who kept up a fiction of republican rule, and called himself "Princeps" and "Imperator"...."First citizen" and "War Leader". (Sounds allot like our president's titles dosen't it?)


{In between now and then we have revolutionary non monarchic France going from a republic of sorts to becoming a Bonaparte Empire over continental western Europe.}

In the German case allot of the powers Hitler had when he first became Chancellor were already granted to that office through the actions of past chancellors or Wiemar Germany. His party did not have control of the Riechstag until after a fire destroyed their building.... which was blamed on the Communist party as a terrorist attack.... From there Hitler got the powers of the President as well as Chancellor and a open ended decaration of emergency powers.... That is what created the Third Riech. Not the army but the legislature voting it into existence!

That is what the second amendment keeps from happening here in the United Sates of America. Not some pie in the sky thing that has never happened in the past but something that has happened time and again in free democratic socitities where the people were not armed.

The average life span of republics and democracies is hisrotically about 240 years ( The roman republic lasted about 450 years, Wiemar germany about 20 the rest fall in between.) Where the populace was not armed and not accustomed to freedom. The USA has been around longer than that average. If we are to outlast as a republic even the majesty of Rome we need to keep and bear arms as a people. As a symbol of our collective freedom, rights, and responsibilities as Citizens of the United States of America.

I think you will find that the reasons behind Hitler becoming Chancellor had a lot more to do with Britain and France's policies towards Germany in 1918 than with a populace denied access to guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrendaQG

A democracy or republic rarely becomes all at once in a big coup. It does what it did in Wiemar Germany, or Republican Rome. It is a slow creep over years or generations. Slowly a free people sacrifice a right here, a villagers there, all for the sake of security or money. Then somewhere down the road comes Ceasar and his legions and instead of being opposed by the people they are welcomed as they cross the Rubicon. So starts the events that lead to the total acceptance of virtual one man rule by Octavian Augustus, who kept up a fiction of republican rule, and called himself "Princeps" and "Imperator"...."First citizen" and "War Leader". (Sounds allot like our president's titles dosen't it?)


{In between now and then we have revolutionary non monarchic France going from a republic of sorts to becoming a Bonaparte Empire over continental western Europe.}

In the German case allot of the powers Hitler had when he first became Chancellor were already granted to that office through the actions of past chancellors or Wiemar Germany. His party did not have control of the Riechstag until after a fire destroyed their building.... which was blamed on the Communist party as a terrorist attack.... From there Hitler got the powers of the President as well as Chancellor and a open ended decaration of emergency powers.... That is what created the Third Riech. Not the army but the legislature voting it into existence!

---

Try reading "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer. Your grasp of Hitler's rise to power is tenuous.

And try Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", or Durant's "Caesar and Christ", they may help you understand understand why your statements about Caeser and the Roman people are pure bunk.

Quote:

---

That is what the second amendment keeps from happening here in the United Sates of America. Not some pie in the sky thing that has never happened in the past but something that has happened time and again in free democratic socitities where the people were not armed.

---

That may have been what it was intended for 219 years ago, but that definition doesn't fit anymore. That doesn't mean it has no import in the life of the Country now, but not as an armed check on governmental power. The introduction of a large standing army negated that idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomfurbs

I think you will find that the reasons behind Hitler becoming Chancellor had a lot more to do with Britain and France's policies towards Germany in 1918 than with a populace denied access to guns.

---

Quite true, but an unarmed populace certainly made it much easier for him to take over and made it impossible for the populace to get their country back - that is until after it was reduced to rubble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paladin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomfurbs

I think you will find that the reasons behind Hitler becoming Chancellor had a lot more to do with Britain and France's policies towards Germany in 1918 than with a populace denied access to guns.

---

Quite true, but an unarmed populace certainly made it much easier for him to take over and made it impossible for the populace to get their country back - that is until after it was reduced to rubble.

---

The German people didn't want their country back. While they were not all National Socialists, the population was generally happy with their lot under Hitler and the Nazis.

Given all the complex economic and political factors that come into play as an empire or a nation declines, factors that slowly erode away at the cohesiveness of the state over the generations (according to your own account, Brenda), then surely you must agree that an armed citizenry is not the ONLY thing that stands between the life and death of that political whole. A myriad of OTHER puzzle pieces stand in the way and need to (be) removed to precipitate or further the decline. That, at the very least, you must concede.

Moreover, an armed populace can sometimes have a quite deleterious effect on the health of a nation. The KKK was an armed subset of the populace and it was responsible for the suppression, torture and death of countless brave people. It wasn’t stopped by an armed populace…it was the populace armed. It wasn’t stopped by the military or the police. The KKK melted in its own shame as the press exposed it for what it was. FBI investigations, the American Courts and the movement for Civil Rights dissolved the clan into the rancid little vestige that’s left today.

The Nazi’s in Germany had a great deal of support among anti-Semitic civilians who armed themselves and took to the streets to confront and harass those not sympathetic to their black cause.

Civilian troops of young southern rebels fought treasonous battles against the United States of America so that southern gentlemen might continue to own slaves.

Before an armed citizenry can be of any use to the cause of democracy, the citizens have to want a democracy; and they have to know what a democracy is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrendaQG

I'm not being sarcastic there. If as the federalist papers cited say that arms means any and all weapons weather or not they existed at the time of the founding of our nation. Then thermonuclear weapons would be included. The only thing's keeping them out of a person's hands would have to be the impracticality of them as weapons. They are hardly of any use to the countries that have them other than as a deterrent. (consider the following. Bin laden is in all likely hood in Pakistan. Pakistan has the H Bomb and the means to deliver it by Bomber or Missile to Nato and other allies territories. If they did not have that capability we could be much more assertive with them.)


On a more serious note. Thatiger and Trish. I'm sorry but you are wrong on this one. The supreme court has just now gotten off the dime and ruled that laws that BAN handguns are unconstitutional. FIREARMS CANNOT SHOULD NOT AND WILL NEVER BE CONSTITUTIONALLY BANNED WITHOUT CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION. So instead of arguing about the second amendment those who belive as you do need to try and get the constitution amended to explicitly ban firearms. I am sure that will work out just as well as prohibition did before.

---

OK brenda what the fuck are you smoking this is my first post in this thread........And i like the idea of overturning the ban its a good thing for DC..i guess you have to live in the DMV area thats all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomfurbs

Drug dealers will always have illegal weapons. They also tend to shoot other drug dealers, not joe public.

'Law-abiding' citizens is an oxymoron. Every other jackass on the street owning a firearm is scary, for the reaons I have already outlined.

I never meet drug-dealers in my day-to-day life, but I meet a lot of ignorant, short-tempered, overcompensating 'law-abiding' citizens. If they were armed I would be shitting myself.

When I think of how many bar-fights/road-rage/bus-rage/street arguments I have seen, I would not want any lethal weapons within range of them.

---

Happiness is a warm gun!