New Canadian Gun Ban

[Giordano]

But did Hitler really ban guns? Actually he loosened up gun ownership in most ways, though the details varied for different weapons and at different times:
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...-control-regulation-nazi-germany-did-not-hel/

But does it matter when it is such a convenient and frequently used meme?

 

[Giordano]

Of course nothing new will ever come from a gun control thread. But I will just say that I am fed up with entertaining the childish desire of many gun advocates who primarily want to play with their gun toys no matter the cost to others people’s lives. If they want to play cowboy, detective, or soldier then they should work toward and agree with tough and enforced rules to prevent misuse of these toys. No matter if if makes their games a little harder to play. I don’t believe it is not possible to unite and make it happen.

As for many of those others who view that their personal safety is only ensured by their personal ability to arm themselves heavily: if you think about it for most of these people (who are not diamond dealers) that is likely unjustified paranoia and bravado. And it’s the wide availability of guns in other people’s hands that create the dangers that are there.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

But did Hitler really ban guns? Actually he loosened up gun ownership in most ways, though the details varied for different weapons and at different times:
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...-control-regulation-nazi-germany-did-not-hel/

But does it matter when it is such a convenient and frequently used meme?

Anti-gun rhetoric specifically twisted to portray Hitler as pro-gun. Yeah, he was pro-gun for Nazi's only. Is that really a side you wanna be on?

From your link:

"Regulations were introduced, though, to impose limits on Jews.

On Nov. 11, 1938, the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons was issued. Under it, Jews living under the Third Reich were forbidden to own or possess any form of weapons, including truncheons, knives, firearms and ammunition."

I suppose this worked out well for the Jews? Not so much.


Chris B.

 

[Giordano]

Anti-gun rhetoric specifically twisted to portray Hitler as pro-gun. Yeah, he was pro-gun for Nazi's only. Is that really a side you wanna be on?

From your link:

"Regulations were introduced, though, to impose limits on Jews.

On Nov. 11, 1938, the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons was issued. Under it, Jews living under the Third Reich were forbidden to own or possess any form of weapons, including truncheons, knives, firearms and ammunition."

I suppose this worked out well for the Jews? Not so much.


Chris B.

As my full citation discusses, Hitler generally loosened gun controls and for all citizens for a number of years. Then yes, he specifically targeted Jews in preventing them from having guns after all his many other overt and public attacks on them. It was not a subtle attempt to undermine them before anyone knew what was going on.

No one questions that specific gun rules targeting an oppressed minority were and would be evil. But the meme I always see is that gun control of any kind is a sign of dictatorial malfeasance. Do you believe preventing people in general being required to register guns, be licensed, etc., is really analogous to spewing hatred against a minority and then prohibiting them specifically from owning guns?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

As my full citation discusses, Hitler generally loosened gun controls and for all citizens for a number of years. Then yes, he specifically targeted Jews in preventing them from having guns after all his many other overt and public attacks on them. It was not a subtle attempt to undermine them before anyone knew what was going on.

No one questions that specific gun rules targeting an oppressed minority were and would be evil. But the meme I always see is that gun control of any kind is a sign of dictatorial malfeasance. Do you believe preventing people in general being required to register guns, be licensed, etc., is really analogous to spewing hatred against a minority and then prohibiting them specifically from owning guns?

It's likely a matter of perception. Those that are pro-gun argue against the Hitler like tactics of removing gun rights from individuals. To us, we're all potential Jews in a Nazi World. Nobody should be denied a right to self preserve.

The anti-gun argument believes the Nazi World can be trusted to do what's best for those under its control. But pro-gunners are skeptical since it didn't work out that way in the past.

No, it's best not to let anyone have total control over the masses. If for no other reason the people should be armed to remove a corrupt government if one was to come to power. I'm not suggesting Canada has a corrupt government now, but who knows? If not now maybe later, what then? The people didn't vote on this latest decision and loss of rights, sounds familiar.

Chris B.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

It's likely a matter of perception. Those that are pro-gun argue against the Hitler like tactics of removing gun rights from individuals. To us, we're all potential Jews in a Nazi World. Nobody should be denied a right to self preserve.

The anti-gun argument believes the Nazi World can be trusted to do what's best for those under its control. But pro-gunners are skeptical since it didn't work out that way in the past.

No, it's best not to let anyone have total control over the masses. If for no other reason the people should be armed to remove a corrupt government if one was to come to power. I'm not suggesting Canada has a corrupt government now, but who knows? If not now maybe later, what then? The people didn't vote on this latest decision and loss of rights, sounds familiar.

Chris B.

To be fair, armed militias going against the corrupt government is how the fascist movements in Europe gained power, in the same way similar militias took over Russia.

So while in the US they may seem bastions of freedom, in Europe history has shown it's actually a bad idea.

 

[Baylor]

It's likely a matter of perception. Those that are pro-gun argue against the Hitler like tactics of removing gun rights from individuals. To us, we're all potential Jews in a Nazi World. Nobody should be denied a right to self preserve.

The anti-gun argument believes the Nazi World can be trusted to do what's best for those under its control. But pro-gunners are skeptical since it didn't work out that way in the past.

No, it's best not to let anyone have total control over the masses. If for no other reason the people should be armed to remove a corrupt government if one was to come to power. I'm not suggesting Canada has a corrupt government now, but who knows? If not now maybe later, what then? The people didn't vote on this latest decision and loss of rights, sounds familiar.

Chris B.

You keep falling into their trap. Playing the Hitler card is a gift to city dwelling European bugmen. Rather than playing into their hand, expose their naivete. There are several good reasons to own a gun in America, so explain that to them. The "you never know when a Nazi is lurking behind the corner" argument is not a good argument. That's their argument.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

One can also easily question whether most of the gun rights advocates so visible in the USA really believe those “rights” should extend to minorities as well as to people who look like them.

That's a hilarious twist. The people fighting to protect individual gun rights are accused of secretly denying those rights to minorities?

ie the anti-gun lobby are friends of the minority because we want to take the gun rights away from everyone else too...

Right out of the playbook.

Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You keep falling into their trap. Playing the Hitler card is a gift to city dwelling European bugmen. Rather than playing into their hand, expose their naivete. There are several good reasons to own a gun in America, so explain that to them. The "you never know when a Nazi is lurking behind the corner" argument is not a good argument. That's their argument.

A discussion of opinion about Hitler's approach to gun control does not a trap make. It's just a discussion about history as compared with the current Canadian law imposed on the masses by their "Führer" without a vote from the people.

The only reason anyone should own a gun is if they want one. Nothing about need, simply want. If living without one is good for you then there you are. All is right with the World. I don't have the desire to try to persuade anyone that they should want or need a gun (or not). It's an individual's choice, where allowed.

I do think they should have that choice though and it should not be taken away by an individual. Let 'em vote.

Chris B.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Jesus, what a twist you've attempted.

Supporting gun rights for everyone as I do is not a position Hitler held by his own words. You are allying yourself with a Nazi philosophy and defining those who defy that philosophy of being in your words: "shouty gun-totin' types are definitely pseudo-Aryan, antisemitic, pro-fascist, pro-Hitler" That position is insanity in my view.

I didn't attempt any twist at all. I simply pointed out that Hitler was referring to keeping the untermensch unarmed, not everybody who isn't in government which is what you seem to think he meant. You do know what untermensch means in that context, right? History shows that guns were actually plentiful in Nazi Germany. Hitler used his own pistol to bring it to an end.

To think that all Canadians can't be trusted to own firearms... That this new law is the only thing keeping them from mass killings. I didn't know Canadians were that unstable. If that truly is the case, I'd have to agree with you, a trip to the local 711 there is probably much safer now.

Chris B.

And that's where you're wrong. Perhaps you should read the new Canadian legislation before going into your little slippery-slope spiel.

 

[zooterkin]

Supporting gun rights for everyone as I do

We're talking about Canada, just to remind you and everyone else; as I understand it, there is no right to own guns there (nor in most civilised countries).

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Ergo, guns need to be dealt with accordingly by the laws of a civilized society. And if the laws of said civilized society aren't restrictively regulated enough to keep guns tightly controlled by the proper authorities, then said laws need to be changed, and they need to be changed immediately. For far too long, people have been treating modern-day guns (read: not muskets) like they're nothing but a fun tool to play with (read: Nerf football)... but the neverending mass shootings (read: high volume, low timeframe massacres) are proof that they are not.

Laws need to constantly change/adapt/evolve alongside the constant changing/evolving of technologies and societies. And if those laws aren't being changed accordingly? Then we have a failure of leadership in our countries. Period.

Literally Hitler.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Of course nothing new will ever come from a gun control thread. But I will just say that I am fed up with entertaining the childish desire of many gun advocates who primarily want to play with their gun toys no matter the cost to others people’s lives. If they want to play cowboy, detective, or soldier then they should work toward and agree with tough and enforced rules to prevent misuse of these toys. No matter if if makes their games a little harder to play. I don’t believe it is not possible to unite and make it happen.

You are literally Hitler.

As for many of those others who view that their personal safety is only ensured by their personal ability to arm themselves heavily: if you think about it for most of these people (who are not diamond dealers) that is likely unjustified paranoia and bravado. And it’s the wide availability of guns in other people’s hands that create the dangers that are there.

FWIW, I was reading a thread on a different forum the other day populated by people who had lived in the US and also in other countries (with both people born and raised in the US who left, whether for a limited time or not, and people born and raised elsewhere who took up residence, again whether for a limited time or not), and a large majority of the responses as to the difference between the US and the rest of the world said that the US is characterised by fear and paranoia when compared to other countries.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

To us, we're all potential Jews in a Nazi World. Nobody should be denied a right to self preserve.

I swear to God that I made my last post before reading this one.

If for no other reason the people should be armed to remove a corrupt government if one was to come to power.

You do know that the government has drones, bombers, tanks, and long-range missiles, don't you?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

We're talking about Canada, just to remind you and everyone else; as I understand it, there is no right to own guns there (nor in most civilised countries).

Literally Hitler.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

On the subject of whether or not the populous being armed makes it more likely to be able to overthrow a dictator. The TL/DR version is that there appears to be no correlation between the number of guns a population own and their ability to overthrow a dictator.

 

[crescent]

On the subject of whether or not the populous being armed makes it more likely to be able to overthrow a dictator. The TL/DR version is that there appears to be no correlation between the number of guns a population own and their ability to overthrow a dictator.

This is something I became aware of due to my service (ironically) in the Peace Corps.

I served in Nepal during the first two years of that nation's civil war.* The Maoist rebels started out with very, very few firearms of any sort. Just a handful of shotguns and some antique rifles (muzzle loading muskets, even, with barrels made from water pipes, "grenades" made out of clay balls stuffed with black powder). They had no outside support (China was embarrassed their allegiance to Mao), except for perhaps some support fro Maoists in India (who were themselves devoid of foreign support).

The government side had police and military with rifles and some aircraft, with military support and training from the U.S. and Britain, including many who had served overseas on U.N. peacekeeping missions, those soldiers got extra training here in the U.S. Plus some who had served in the British military.

The Maoist didn't win the war outright, but did fight the war to a draw. In the peace settlement, the Maoist leader became Prime Minister and the King abdicated. While I was there, they were focusing attacks on police stations to get guns. Eventually they settled into "Winning by not losing", which is a real thing in guerrilla/insurgent warfare.

If push came to shove in America (or in Canada, anywhere with the similar cultural traditions), people would find a way, with or without guns. Here in the states, the brownshirts with the guns in the capitol buildings appear to be more like the ones who would fight to end democracy rather than save it. They'll only support the sort of democracy that gives them the outcomes they want, nothing else seems to count.


(*The PC kept us well away from any areas where there was Maoist activity. At the time the "war" didn't much feel like a war yet and was still pretty low intensity and localized to a few districts. When it got worse, the PC was pulled out. My post was perfectly safe from all that, I don't want to give the perception that I was serving in anything remotely like a war zone - although there was eventually fighting there, years after I left).

 

[lomiller]

Anti-gun rhetoric specifically twisted to portray Hitler as pro-gun. Yeah, he was pro-gun for Nazi's only.

How do you think the NRA and/or it's supporters would react to Muslim open carry demonstration in their town?

 

[rockinkt]

Of course nothing new will ever come from a gun control thread. But I will just say that I am fed up with entertaining the childish desire of many gun advocates who primarily want to play with their gun toys no matter the cost to others people’s lives. If they want to play cowboy, detective, or soldier then they should work toward and agree with tough and enforced rules to prevent misuse of these toys. No matter if if makes their games a little harder to play. I don’t believe it is not possible to unite and make it happen.

As for many of those others who view that their personal safety is only ensured by their personal ability to arm themselves heavily: if you think about it for most of these people (who are not diamond dealers) that is likely unjustified paranoia and bravado. And it’s the wide availability of guns in other people’s hands that create the dangers that are there.

I personally am fed up with entertaining the childish desire of many alcohol advocates who primarily want to drink their alcohol no matter the cost to others people’s lives.

Alcohol causes far, far more damage than firearms in Canada. There is no comparison in fact. 4-5 people on average die in car crashes caused by impaired driving and thousands are injured every year. That is around 1650 preventable deaths. Hunting rifles accounted for 56 homicides in 2018.
There have no murders or attempted murders by the use of any of the banned firearms since one person was killed and three injured by a Beretta CX4 in 2006. (no definitive word on what was used in the most recent shooting).
In Canada, there were around 77,000 hospitalizations entirely caused by alcohol in 2015–2016, compared to 75,000 hospitalizations for heart attacks in the same year.
In 2012, alcohol was responsible for 4,258 deaths in Canada, representing 1.9% of all deaths.

A report released in 2018 by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction and the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research estimated alcohol cost Canadians almost $15 billion per year in terms of lost productivity, justice costs, and more.

So - I ask this of the people who think that the banning of these firearms is some creating some sort of miraculous social improvement in Canada: Since the use of these firearms in criminal activities is exceedingly rare - would it not be better to put your efforts into calling for a complete ban on all alcohol sales?
Please do not talk about how hard it would be as that has nothing at all to do with the question. It is well recognized and publicly stated by the major police agencies in Canada that banning these firearms will NOT keep them out of the hands of the criminals.

 

[lionking]

You forgot to mention swimming pools.......