8 shot dead and several gunshot injuries at Fed-Ex facilities

[MIDutch]

Incorrect. They had enough to make them targets to be disarmed.

And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

You keep saying this, but have produced nothing in support.

The flip side of this argument is that you have also provided NO evidence that the US government ("dictatorship") is planning on disarming the US public anytime soon (if ever), so the whole "we need these weapons to protect us from our government ("must be able to protect themselves against an overreaching government")" is both moot and idiotic.

 

[Whyayeman]

being unfairly targeted by, say, the police and the justice system, and in some cases killed, you would support them taking up arms against those same agents of the government?

That is the logic of the argument.

(Stand by to be told that the Second Amendment does not mean that. This Amendment always means what some gun lover wants it to mean.)

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

So if a section of the community were to decide that they were being unfairly targeted by, say, the police and the justice system, and in some cases killed, you would support them taking up arms against those same agents of the government?

Well, it depends. Can people just shoot officers on sight or who tell them to do legal things and sidestep fighting through the legal system? No. Are they being abruptly rounded up and taken away without any due process? Possibly.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

You keep saying this, but have produced nothing in support.

The flip side of this argument is that you have also provided NO evidence that the US government ("dictatorship") is planning on disarming the US public anytime soon (if ever), so the whole "we need these weapons to protect us from our government ("must be able to protect themselves against an overreaching government")" is both moot and idiotic.

Well, I haven't located a gun registry for each city, if that is what you are expecting. Just evidence that disarming a population precedes taking over and controlling them. Over and over and over in history.

It is not any more moot today than it was in the first place, in reality.

Let's take a look at what Hitler said:
Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations with the English translation copyrighted 1953 by Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Consider this passage, from Part Three: 6 February – 7 September 1942:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police.

Let's take a look at the 1938 German's Weapons Act: and the 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons,

The former permitted guns with permits for everyone over 18 except it effectively deprived all Jews living under the Third Reich within the occupied Sudetenland and Austria of the right to possess any form of weapons, including truncheons, knives, firearms and ammunition.

That's just one country at one time period.

 

[Whyayeman]

RestoreTheJoy has the support of Hitler.

 

[Whyayeman]

... disarming a population precedes taking over and controlling them. Over and over and over in history.

This is not really relevant to this discussion. I hope we can all see the difference between gun control legislation and the onset of totalitarian government. RestoreTheJoy's examples were totalitarian states.

In Western Europe gun ownership is not forbidden but is controlled by laws. It is preposterous to suggest that Europeans are not free because the law restricts gun ownership. There is no pressure in these countries to change these rules.

Europeans know a lot about war, having been through lots of them in the past, but absolutely nobody thinks that arming the people would make them safer.

 

[Pommer]

Europeans are not free because the law restricts gun ownership.

In America when a man looks at all the guns in the gun-safe, that’s a visual reinforcement that at least he’s “free enough to own a gun”, which is all the “freedom” some need. Without near absolute freedom to own a gun, they get antsy.
Guns are our societal security-blanket, most don’t need/want one, some like to have at least one for general principle and some like to bury all their fears in gunmetal blue!

 

[Whyayeman]

The Second Amendment is a security blanket for people who are of a nervous disposition? That is a new interpretation of the Constitution.

What are they all afraid of?

 

[Whyayeman]

It is preposterous to suggest that Europeans are not free because the law restricts gun ownership.

I thought I had better put in the whole sentence here since the quotation just now by Pommer reversed its meaning. I am sure it was an accident!

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Well, it depends. Can people just shoot officers on sight or who tell them to do legal things and sidestep fighting through the legal system?

So now Americans have to use the legal system to fight oppressive government, and NOT arms? Doesn't sound very second amendment-y to me...

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

RestoreTheJoy has the support of Hitler.

Excuse me? What is this supposed to even mean?

Hitler's dead, if you were unaware.

If you are into hit and run nonsensical insults, don't bother.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

So now Americans have to use the legal system to fight oppressive government, and NOT arms? Doesn't sound very second amendment-y to me...

It's definitely the first option. Use the legal system. We all used to know this.

 

[Whyayeman]

Excuse me? What is this supposed to even mean?

Hitler's dead, if you were unaware.

I was referring to your post #124 where you have quoted Hitler extensively in support of your argument.

'Let's take a look at what Hitler said', followed by the quotation from 'Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944'.

That is what my post meant. Have I misunderstood? I would like to think so as I was somewhat shocked at the time. I have only ever encountered quotations from Hitler from out and out fascists up until now, so some clarification would be very welcome.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I was referring to your post #124 where you have quoted Hitler extensively in support of your argument.

'Let's take a look at what Hitler said', followed by the quotation from 'Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944'.

That is what my post meant. Have I misunderstood? I would like to think so as I was somewhat shocked at the time. I have only ever encountered quotations from Hitler from out and out fascists up until now, so some clarification would be very welcome.

When you are quoting something, cite it. Yes, I asserted that disarming a population precedes taking over the population and controlling them (which leads to genocide).

Yes, I of course I quoted Hitler's own words in support of HIS plot which he actually executed to disarm the population before decimating it, in order to support my assertion.

Why don't you read in context of the discussion instead of plucking one quote out to twist in order to pretend that somehow I "support Hitler now", when in reality, I am arguing AGAINST those who support disarming the population like Hitler did.

Context.

Saying you "misunderstood" is an understatement at the very least.

 

[Whyayeman]

Sorry. I tend to see red when I see Hitler quotes anywhere.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Sorry. I tend to see red when I see Hitler quotes anywhere.

Well, you should be less reactionary and read what is actually said, in context, instead of jump to emotional - and wrong- conclusions. That's what is supposed to happen here.

It's kind of necessary to understand what Hitler said and wrote in order to even begin to understand what happened there. We must not forget and let it ever happen again.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

It's definitely the first option. Use the legal system. We all used to know this.

Problem is, by definition, an oppressive government would rig the court system in its favour.

Regardless though, you use the court system, they don’t find in your favour. Now what?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Problem is, by definition, an oppressive government would rig the court system in its favour.

Regardless though, you use the court system, they don’t find in your favour. Now what?

Yeah. I hear you.

I don't know what is next, depending on issue. Huge social media push (unless the PTB shut you down). Find some way to connect and have rallies (that the PTB won't cover).

There are definitely issues as we are starting to see, actually.