- Thread starter Maurice Boscorelli
- Start date
papasmerf
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2010
- Messages
- 33,614
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)
- Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
[*]All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
[*]Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
[*]Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
[*]The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
[*]Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.
SillyGirl
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2017
- Messages
- 7,246
hobnew said:
I think it will happen, and it will be drastic. Then states will launch lawsuits, and eventually the Supreme Court will overturn the order as unconstitutional.
My personal opinion is that private ownership of fully-automatic weapons should be banned. However, I don't think the Federal government has the constitutional authority to do it. It's a State issue, unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Which will never happen, because amending the Constitution requires ratification by 3/4 of the states.
RAWD said:
and mass shootings only happen in the US? (ok, so they do happen elsewhere but more so in the US).
BTW: I don't know of ANY government that trusts it's peoples...they'd be crazy if they did.
I'd also like to remind the rawd man that Canada is a socialist country.....we have government healthcare, government unemployment coverage, welfare etc etc etc
SillyGirl said:
You can find my assessment any way you like but I'd like to remind you that many of the passengers on all airlines phoned loved ones to say goodbye so your argument that they didn't know they were going to die is false.
I work with utility knives ALL day EVERY day and have been cut badly enough to require stitches (biggest was 18) and countless times that didn't. If I saw someone with a utility knife (let's call them what they are really called) threatening to hijack a plane I'd laugh, seriously. To me, that is truly like someone trying to hold up a bank with a pencil.......I'll tell you why: you can't stab a person with one., They have to slash, which means all you have to do to limit the damage is to prevent any sideways movement. They only have 1 sharp edge so they can only cause damage in ONE direction. Unless they were a body builder or UFC fighter, 2 regular people could disarm them.
This is actually a really good example of how the argument for arming everyone is false. For eg: after the georgia tech massacre, the NRA spokespeople came out with "if GT hadn't banned weapons from the campus, students who had their own guns would have been able to stop the assault". Well, ok, so what they're saying is everyone should be allowed knives, guns, swords, rifles on planes as well. But NO ONE raises a peep about their rights when told they can't take their guns with them in their carry on.....why is that?
I don't know the answer but I'd assume that because they "accept the fact that their right to bear arms" doesn't apply. That it would be dangerous to allow that. That they would be subject to more hijackings, more plane crashes, ie: more death. So if it is OK to relinquish this right while on a plane, why is it so wrong to do so at other times?
BTW: I was talking with the guys at work and some of them are adamant hunters, one even has (legal) handguns, and even he said he doesn't mind the rules and regs we have with handguns because he understands the need to limit who can own one and the responsibility that goes with it.
I came up with a suggestion: since these assault weapons (there you go sheik) are popular to collectors, if they are ONLY interested in them as a collector item, why not simply buy a replica? They are a LOT cheaper and no issues with background checks etc. In fact, if that is the real reason, then having one disabled shouldn't be a problem (welding a plug in the barrel).
Now everyone know why they would never accept this because we ALL know that anyone who has one of these weapons wants to use it. Either to defend their house and home, shoot up some 'bangers, blast away like a madman (sorry madman, no offence lol), etc etc etc. What good is a weapon designed to kill people if you can't potentially kill people with it?
BTW Psmerf: the nazi reference is pointless. Not sure what you were trying to get at but as everyone likes to equate the nazis with terrible things, any educated person knows that as a political party, they accomplished more for germany than the US government ever did. They took a downtrodden country and made it a world power....they rebuilt the country and the pride of its citizens, they built amazing infrastructure, etc etc etc.
I know this will curl more people's toes but: you know, there is such a thing as TOO much freedom and the US of A is a prime example of this.
I'll give you some highlights:
the world economic chaos (free to fuck everyone over)
rampant drug abuse (free to fuck yourself over)
rampant alcoholism (free to fuck yourself over then expect the government to bail you out)
rampant obesity (free to eat yourself to death then blame the fast food companies)
rampant firearm use (free to kill your neighbour's 12 yr old kid because they wandered onto your property)
I could go on and on but I'll leave it there......
R
Robintheboywonder
Guest
T, your wisdom impresses me bud.
LickingGravity
Reviewer
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2010
- Messages
- 4,747
Sheik said:
While I don't for a second believe the above is actually factual ( 1 out of every 2 people? Really? C'mon ) if it were that just sort of prove how fucked up things have become.
Oh and Papa I'm guessing George was talking about the British. If you are using fear of your own government as a justification for owning guns you aren't exactly doing a great job selling the US to me. And BTW shouldn't you be moving to Waco?
Similar threads
