New anti-firearms bill

This is a discussion on New anti-firearms bill within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Hablutzel Some are reduced to living under an illusion. Iam not saying we live under some neo third reich,all that is said ...

Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 239

Thread: New anti-firearms bill

  1. #16
    Member Array Torrid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Hablutzel View Post
    Some are reduced to living under an illusion.
    Iam not saying we live under some neo third reich,all that is said is we are losing freedoms and if it continues what we will have in the end is no better than that of Nazi Germany and Communist China.
    Exactly and I take it as a badge of honor when someone thinks I'm on the fringe for looking to the founding fathers. Hell, all of us gun owners have already been labeled by this government as right wing extremists, so can someone please explain to me how this isn't verging on tyranny or at the least treason against our own people? This is a representative republic by the people and this government that we've lended our power to has the audacity to label us for exercising our rights? I still stand by my previous post.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Ex Member Array Hablutzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    46
    Thanks Torrid!The Patriot Act and the Enabling Act of 1933 both may allow a government to suspended civil liberties and habeas corpus rights.The Nazi's did just that!Those who do not learn from history are forced to repeat it.This is the point I am stating in this thread.It is not an attack on the United States!
    Last edited by Hablutzel; August 16th, 2009 at 01:43 PM.

  4. #18
    Member Array mouse07410's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    20

    Law against transferring arms to terrorists affects honest citizens? You bet!

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    How does a law against transferring arms to terrorists affect honest citizens?
    Easily. A terrorist used of was suspected of using weapon X - therefore honest citizens would be barred from owning, purchasing, transferring or otherwise dealing with weapon X. "It's an assault weapon that only terrorists use - why do you need it?"

    disgusting ...... compare the United States to Nazi Germany
    It pays to observe German history, in particular the fact that Germany wasn't "born" Nazi, and did not become Nazi "overnight". NSDAP came to power by gaining a victory in a democratic election, quite a reasonable process. And nobody in the beginning promised Dachau or Auswitz. The level and the "temperature" of the rhethorics was comparable.

    So dear SelfDefense, try to control your disgust - emotions tend to cloud your thinking. Just sit tight and watch - you might see something familiar from the history files.
    Last edited by mouse07410; August 16th, 2009 at 12:13 PM. Reason: Addition

  5. #19
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    Should be through Judicial Branch judgment ONLY

    IMHO the ends do not justify the means and no constitutional right should ever be abridged in any way because some bureaucrat/administrative branch employee "suspected' something.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  6. #20
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by mouse07410 View Post
    Easily. A terrorist used of was suspected of using weapon X - therefore honest citizens would be barred from owning, purchasing, transferring or otherwise dealing with weapon X. "It's an assault weapon that only terrorists use - why do you need it?"
    That is not what the snippet of legislation addressed. Of curse, once you work yourself up into an emotional frenzy, like the other two posters, then you will quickly see goblins around every corner.

    It pays to observe German history, in particular the fact that Germany wasn't "born" Nazi, and did not become Nazi "overnight". NSDAP came to power by gaining a victory in a democratic election, quite a reasonable process.
    I suggest you review German history. Hitler did nt take power by any democratic process.
    And nobody in the beginning promised Dachau or Auswitz. The level and the "temperature" of the rhethorics was comparable.

    So dear SelfDefense, try to control your disgust - emotions tend to cloud your thinking. Just sit tight and watch - you might see something familiar from the history files.
    Yes, I will. I will see yet another in a ong line of Constitutional elections, every two years without exception.

    What is frightening is the fringe that think we are ANYTHING like Nazi Germany. Most gun owners are normal. Others are afraid of their shadow.

  7. #21
    Ex Member Array Hablutzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post

    I suggest you review German history. Hitler did nt take power by any democratic process


    Q: Was Hitler democratically elected as Chancellor of Germany in 1933?

    A: Yes. Of course he was.

    However, because the office of Chancellor was not filled by popular election, it might be more accurate to say that Hitler was constitutionally chosen to be the Chancellor of Germany, a democratic nation. The point is, there was nothing about Hitler's appointment as Chancellor (30 Jan. 1933) which violated the Constitution of Germany. President Hindenburg legally selected the leader of the largest party in Parliament to head up a coalition government. It has happened hundreds of times throughout history without being considered undemocratic.

    Only in light of later events does it become obvious that this was the beginning of the end of democratic rule in Germany. If Hitler had suddenly died in office before the Reichtag Fire (27 Feb. 1933) gave him the excuse to crush the opposition, history would record the uninterrupted flow of democracy in Germany in 1933. Granted, the window of opportunity for Hitler to leave a legacy as a proper democrat was only open for a single month, but that could have been enough.

    The myth that Hitler slipped into power by way of an illegal backroom deal which bypassed the constitution is more comforting than considering that maybe laws and democratic constitutions are not foolproof safeguards against the emergence of tyrants. If a constitutionally valid plurality want tyranny, they'll get it.

  8. #22
    Ex Member Array Hablutzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    46
    In the presidential election held on March 13, 1932, there were four candidates: the incumbent, Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, Hitler, and two minor candidates, Ernst Thaelmann and Theodore Duesterberg.
    The July 31, 1932, election produced a major victory for Hitler’s National Socialist Party. The party won 230 seats in the Reichstag, making it Germany’s largest political party, but it still fell short of a majority in the 608-member body. On June 1, 1932, Hindenberg appointed Franz von Papen as chancellor of Germany, whom Shirer described as an “unexpected and ludicrous figure.” Papen immediately dissolved the Reichstag (the national congress) and called for new elections, the third legislative election in five months. On January 30, 1933, President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler chancellor of Germany. Although the National Socialists never captured more than 37 percent of the national vote, and even though they still held a minority of cabinet posts and fewer than 50 percent of the seats in the Reichstag, Hitler and the Nazis set out to to consolidate their power. With Hitler as chancellor, that proved to be a fairly easy task.

  9. #23
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hablutzel View Post
    Q: Was Hitler democratically elected as Chancellor of Germany in 1933?

    A: Yes. Of course he was.
    Nice try to hijack the thread. Your attempt at history via google leads you to the wrong answer.

    Hitler never won an election in Germany.

  10. #24
    Ex Member Array Hablutzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Nice try to hijack the thread. Your attempt at history via google leads you to the wrong answer.

    Hitler never won an election in Germany.
    I never said he won an election,but it was thru a democratic process.
    Hindenburg 49.6 percent
    Hitler 30.1 percent
    Thaelmann 13.2 percent
    Duesterberg 6.8 percent

    He still came to power thru a democratic process,as did Bush who had less votes than Gore.

    Bush=50,456,002. Gore= 50,999,897 .

  11. #25
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hablutzel View Post
    I never said he won an election,but it was thru a democratic process.
    Hindenburg 49.6 percent
    Hitler 30.1 percent
    Thaelmann 13.2 percent
    Duesterberg 6.8 percent

    He still came to power thru a democratic process,as did Bush who had less votes than Gore.

    Bush=50,456,002. Gore= 50,999,897 .
    Not even a very good attempt at backtracking:

    Originally Posted by Hablutzel
    Q: Was Hitler democratically elected as Chancellor of Germany in 1933?
    A: Yes. Of course he was.
    Furthermore, Bush had more electoral votes than Gore. You are demonstrating a severe lack of understanding of our Constitutional process.

    And the fact remains it is despicable to compare Nazi Germany to the United States of America.

  12. #26
    Ex Member Array Hablutzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    46
    I know how the electoral college works!I Am simply making the point that it is a democratic process!!You posted that Hitler did not take power thru a democratic process,He did!So did Bush.I suppose I Am wrong yet again and I must be a moron due to my demostration in my severe lack of understanding of our Government.I must not be educated to a level that is high enough to disagree with an engineer.I Am just a lowly contractor.
    It has been fun SelfDefense chatting with you,but I Am finished!

  13. #27
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hablutzel View Post
    I know how the electoral college works!I Am simply making the point that it is a democratic process!!You posted that Hitler did not take power thru a democratic process,He did!So did Bush.
    An appointment is not a democratic process. Hitler was appointed chancellor and then suspended the constitution. Bush won an election by garnering more votes.

    It is simply wrong headed thinking to believe Hitler and Bush took power in even a semblance of similarity.

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    I concur with SelfDefense.

    It is despicable to compare our Constitutional republic to Nazi Germany. Our nation has had its problems. It, of course, is far from perfect. But to make such a comparison shows a failure to grasp the breadth of intentions and actions which brought Hitler and the Nazis to power.

    For example, whether one supported GW Bush or not, his election was Constitutional and followed the legal process. Whether one agreed with the SCOTUS decision which halted the recounts in Florida or not, it was the end point of the legal process, and Bush held a majority of electoral votes.

    The good news is, there are always other elections coming up and you can do your darndest to throw the current office-holders out. President Bush didn't attempt to suspend Congress or cancel upcoming elections in order for his party to remain in power. You may not like President Obama, but the majority of Americans chose him by following the Constitutional process. You can rest assured that another election will occur in 2012 and the Republicans will try to vote him out. That's not a tyranny.

    There is a fringe element which believes any government is a tyranny. I'd wager they've never had to live under an actual dictatorship. There are a couple of other vocal groups, one on the far left and another on the far right, who describe the loss of an election as evidence of a tyranny. These groups are in denial. They just can't imagine any legitimate reason they could have lost, so it must have been because the other guys cheated.

    We may disagree on specific policy initiatives, but to see the boogey-man behind every piece of legislation doesn't do your position any good at all. If we're going to disagree, let's at least disagree on genuine issues.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  15. #29
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Of curse, once you work yourself up into an emotional frenzy, like the other two posters, then you will quickly see goblins around every corner.
    I don't go along with what most of the tinfoil hat (I wear graphite lined hats) people say but mistrust is a good thing when dealing with ours or any other government. Remember when given the power most people will tend to use it for other things than what its original intent was.

    Michael

  16. #30
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    I don't go along with what most of the tinfoil hat (I wear graphite lined hats) people say but mistrust is a good thing when dealing with ours or any other government.
    I come from a completely different mindset, which is why I run into so much opposition here. I trust our elected officials. And their actions should be carefully monitored. A great man once said, 'Trust but verify.' That is how I live my life.

    Remember when given the power most people will tend to use it for other things than what its original intent was.
    Except for the worst president in our history, Franklin Roosevelt, that has not been the case.

Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Gov. Jindal vetoes anti-gun parade bill
    By ppkheat in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 14th, 2009, 04:55 PM
  2. New HR 2159 Anti-Gun Blacklist Bill Introduced in U.S. House
    By tns0038 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 20th, 2009, 08:55 AM
  3. H.R. 2640 Military.com Gun Bill Not Anti-Veteran
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 16th, 2007, 03:24 PM
  4. The current anti-gun bill introduced in Congress
    By Ron in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: May 21st, 2007, 04:56 PM
  5. Anti lawsuit bill passes
    By rachilders in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 21st, 2005, 11:54 PM

Search tags for this page

, patriot act aided in 179 terror convictions, human events, july 19, 2004; and report from the field: usa patriot act a
,
boliva gun laws
,

david freddoso, patriot act aided in 179 terror convictions, human events, july 19, 2004; and report from the field: usa

,

debate it is difficult to value human right when facing bullets in the field

,
debate topic it is difficult to value human rights when facing bullets in the field
,
it is difficult to value human rights when facing bullets in the field.
,
lautenberg amendment and divorce
,

lautenberg amendment arizona

,
libertarians do not understand
,
list of recent anti firearms legislation
,
new anti gun legislation forum
,
www. sherfen sog.
Click on a term to search for related topics.