Shooting San Bernardino

[onenerdykid]

maybe if LIBERALS didn't put on as may gun restrictions one of the victims would've been carrying and could've saved many of lives...

Even if open carry was legal in California, it doesn't necessarily mean that one or some of the victims there would have been carrying. Owning and carrying a gun has just as much to do with a person's wanting to do it as it does with their right to do it. Had this shooting taken place in Vermont, the end result would have most likely been similar since most Vermont residents do not take advantage of the state's open carry laws. The right to carry a gun is one thing, the desire to do so is another.

And maybe, just maybe if there were proper restrictions on the private sale of guns and there were better background checks done pre and post sale of guns in general, then perhaps this kind of thing could have been caught/prevented/deterred in the first place.

 

[Bombogenesis]

Put your money where your mouth is.

Name one point U.S. history when there wasn't violence or civil unrest.

Name one European country with a comparable history.

the balkan states have had war continuously for hundreds of years. Or at least "civil unrest".

ireland has had war or "civil unrest" for like 1000 years.

 

[ImNotARacist]

Thus being the purpose of the 2nd amendment. And as such, do you think it really is applicable and necessary in today's modern society as it is written in the Constitution?

The same men who penned the 2nd amendment also thought it legally permissible to own another human being and later to think that said human being was only worth 3/5 of a white man. Therefore the

Comparing the freeing of slaves to banning guns is quite a stretch my friend. One grants freedom the other infringes on it. Not a good example.

It's also not wise to generalize the founding fathers. Some may have owned slaves, but no where in the constitution does it push for slavery and many opposed it. Even though Thomas Jeffersons owned slaves and had a slave mistress, his beliefs towards slavery are well documented.

"Throughout his entire life, Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery. Calling it a "moral depravity"1 and a "hideous blot,"2 he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation.3 Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty.4 These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm."

I was merely pointing out that people misinturpret the language used at the time.

By the way, if it werent for guns being in the hands of righteous men, there would still be slaves....

 

[Wis_Skier_23]

Thus being the purpose of the 2nd amendment. And as such, do you think it really is applicable and necessary in today's modern society as it is written in the Constitution?

I ask that question because the Constitution is an imperfect document, created by imperfect men during the 18th century. The same men who penned the 2nd amendment also thought it legally permissible to own another human being and later to think that said human being was only worth 3/5 of a white man. Therefore the Constitution is not the ultimate authority on what is right and what ought to be made legal. It grants us certain rights and those rights can and do change over the course of time. To think that any amendment within the Constitution is free from criticism or unable to challenged given certain circumstances of our modern time is ultimately ridiculous (I'm not saying this is your position, I'm just saying it).

The Constitution should reflect sane policy for every generation and we are right to question if 200+ year old sections pertaining to muskets and militias are relevant in today's society, just as we questioned if it was right to Constitutionally own a human being. Just because something is in the Constitution, it does not immediately and necessarily mean that it is the right thing to have happen or do.

The second amendment is absolutely as vital today as it was 200 years ago. I can guarantee you the Jews in Nazi Germany would have wished they could have owned weapons. If Jews had legal access to firearms they wouldn't have been rounded up and slaughtered.

I can't for the life of me understand why people are so hung up over guns. If YOU dont want to own a gun then don't but don't remove MY freedom to own a firearm. I am a firm believer in more freedom not less, any infringement upon my right to own semiautomatic firearms is a joke. My guns must be the laziest guns in the world as they've never gotten up on their own and killed anyone. Until they do its society you should focus on.

Between Radical Islam, a tremendously violent culture, and the lack of respect for human life, I'd say today of all times is the most important time in history to own a firearm.

 

[ImNotARacist]

And maybe, just maybe if there were proper restrictions on the private sale of guns and there were better background checks done pre and post sale of guns in general, then perhaps this kind of thing could have been caught/prevented/deterred in the first place.

http://www.utahguns.com

Hitler enforced gun registery before exterminating Jews.

No one in North Korea owns guns.

Brazil and Venezula are safe places right?

Knife violence certainly doesnt occur in Ireland.

And of course every gun purchased in Oakland was done so legally.

 

[ImNotARacist]

Between Radical Islam, a tremendously violent culture, and the lack of respect for human life, I'd say today of all times is the most important time in history to own a firearm.

That's exactly why they are trying to take them away

 

[Wis_Skier_23]

Even if open carry was legal in California, it doesn't necessarily mean that one or some of the victims there would have been carrying. Owning and carrying a gun has just as much to do with a person's wanting to do it as it does with their right to do it. Had this shooting taken place in Vermont, the end result would have most likely been similar since most Vermont residents do not take advantage of the state's open carry laws. The right to carry a gun is one thing, the desire to do so is another.

And maybe, just maybe if there were proper restrictions on the private sale of guns and there were better background checks done pre and post sale of guns in general, then perhaps this kind of thing could have been caught/prevented/deterred in the first place.

Open carry is a completely different topic than concealed carry. Many people don't like open carrying as too many people are afraid of just seeing a gun. People dont like to open carry as they don't want to be asked to leave a store or establishment simply because it bothers people. Concealed carry on the other hand allows people to carry and no one is the wiser. No police questioning or hassle from the public.

Sure there is no guarantee any lives would have been saved from the mass shooting but if you were standing in a room or building and a shooter opened fire, would you rather be armed or unarmed. I cant for the life of me understand why someone would rather sit there and be slaughtered vs. being able to fight back. If you think Concealed Carry doesn't work then please enlighten me why mass shootings and violent crime take place the most often in gun free zones. Its because its a soft target.

The police can't be everywhere and by the time they respond its too late.

 

[Wis_Skier_23]

so then after the husband wife tries to leave him, you then want to make it legal for him to buy a gun. Even though he has a voint and unstable history, look at that my point still stands.

grey area? pass a physiological back round check, and not ban all guns, but ban the PEOPLE you're talking about from not getting a gun. I just baited you into agree with my point, check mate. if you worried about passing a background check then i assume you have a history of abuse or are mentally unstable other wise you wouldn't care because you would pass and you can keep your guns.

btw they they bought their rifles legally, so you know change the law so they cant buy them legally with out the proper checks? crazy right?

That is precisely one of the questions on the background check form.

Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?



Here's the form I encourage you to read it.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

I never agreed that a psychological background check is a good thing. There are way too many grey areas you never clarified. A psych test is way too generalized.

- What do you plan to do with all the current legal gun owners? Does everyone have to take this test if they already own a gun.

- What constitutes a failed test? I'd love to be enlightened.

- What about all the people that slip by and pass the test yet still commit mass shootings or violence? How much safer did it really make us?

- What do you plan to do with firearms bought via private sale or are stolen? How can you prevent that from happening?

- What about people that buy guns legally and pass this so called background check and then are "radicalized"

- What about people who buy a gun on behalf of other people?

There are way too many variables to be applied across 300+ million people it is not feasible nor is it right. People can answer questions in such a way that they can pass the test just in order to get a gun. It does nothing to keep us any more safe.

The only way to keep the populous safe is to fire back at these people when they start shooting at innocent people. Concealed carry is the ultimate equalizer and it deserves to be covered a whole hell of a lot more than it is today.

This could have been another San Bernadino but it wasn't thanks to concealed carry.

http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-driver-with-concealed-handgun-prevents-mass-shooting-in-chicago-2015-4

 

[deleted5]

That is precisely one of the questions on the background check form.

Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?



Here's the form I encourage you to read it.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

I never agreed that a psychological background check is a good thing. There are way too many grey areas you never clarified. A psych test is way too generalized.

- What do you plan to do with all the current legal gun owners? Does everyone have to take this test if they already own a gun.

- What constitutes a failed test? I'd love to be enlightened.

- What about all the people that slip by and pass the test yet still commit mass shootings or violence? How much safer did it really make us?

- What do you plan to do with firearms bought via private sale or are stolen? How can you prevent that from happening?

- What about people that buy guns legally and pass this so called background check and then are "radicalized"

- What about people who buy a gun on behalf of other people?

There are way too many variables to be applied across 300+ million people it is not feasible nor is it right. People can answer questions in such a way that they can pass the test just in order to get a gun. It does nothing to keep us any more safe.

The only way to keep the populous safe is to fire back at these people when they start shooting at innocent people. Concealed carry is the ultimate equalizer and it deserves to be covered a whole hell of a lot more than it is today.

This could have been another San Bernadino but it wasn't thanks to concealed carry.

http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-driver-with-concealed-handgun-prevents-mass-shooting-in-chicago-2015-4

Not all people who stalk or beat their partner went to court and was convicted.

Yes

A board certified mental health professional clearing you to own a firearm.

It won't stop all of them but if it stops even one is that not worth it because it's minorly inconvenient for you?

Private sale should go through the same check as gun store the government needs to make that easy and accessible to a seller. And if your gun is stolen. It needs to be looked into how it was stolen and if it was found you were irresponsible with it, you get your guns taken away. Example David lesh shooting a gun out of a moving vehicle at a stop sign on the street.

For someone to actually become a radicalized and has to leave the country and go to the middle east like these shooters did. So again take them away.

I don't know a single person that would buy a gun for someone to kill others? If they were to do that their name should be tied to the gun and then they're just as responsible for the crime.

Yeah obviously overnight this won't solve the problem but in the next 10 20 50 years keeping these things in place will make a difference.

We make all young kids go to school we make all people pass drivers test pay taxes it's completely doable for 300 plus million people we do it today all the time. And 300 million people don't own guns in this country.

37%

More than a third of Americans say they or someone in their household owns a gun. That not close to 300 mill because thats people who know someone who owns a gun as well.

And please tell me more about what you know about psychological background checks board certified psychologist and how they can be so easily manipulated to get through? Oh you don't know anything about it okay just checking. Psychological background checks are too generalized..... yeah you know what you're talking about.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/georgia-boy-2-dies-after-shooting-himself-gun-police-n452826

Look at that if only we looked into the parent and make sure he was responsible with his fire arms this incident could have been avoided.

People are the problem not guns.

OK then let's try stop these people from getting a gun.....

No that won't work just give everyone a gun instead gun crisis solved.

 

[deleted5]

http://www.utahguns.com

Hitler enforced gun registery before exterminating Jews.

False

The 1938 law signed by Hitler does the opposite of what you say. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit

lengths were extended from one year to three years.

 

[ImNotARacist]

False

The 1938 law signed by Hitler does the opposite of what you say. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit

lengths were extended from one year to three years.

You are living in ignorance.

Few citizens owned, or were entitled to own firearms in Germany in the 1930s.[1] The Weimar Republic had strict gun control laws.[6] When the Third Reich gained power, some aspects of gun regulation were loosened, such as allowing ownership for Nazi party members and the military.[4]:672 The laws were harshened in other ways. Nazi laws disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, but relaxed restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens.[4]:670,676 The policies were later expanded to include the confiscation of arms in occupied countries.[7]:533,5

you can't force history to agree with you. Sorry bud.

 

[deleted5]

You are living in ignorance.

Few citizens owned, or were entitled to own firearms in Germany in the 1930s.[1] The Weimar Republic had strict gun control laws.[6] When the Third Reich gained power, some aspects of gun regulation were loosened, such as allowing ownership for Nazi party members and the military.[4]:672 The laws were harshened in other ways. Nazi laws disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, but relaxed restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens.[4]:670,676 The policies were later expanded to include the confiscation of arms in occupied countries.[7]:533,5

you can't force history to agree with you. Sorry bud.

Hey I'm Jewish and had family members live through World War 2.

The issues isnt Jewish people weren't allowed to own guns it's that they were forced into ghetto communities and we're a minority in the country. Even if they had guns they wouldnt be able to fight off the Third Reich. It would have made a very little difference. It took multiple countries to take down the Nazis giving Jewish people guns wouldnt have solved the problem.

This example is completely out of context because you're talking about taking over the minority of Jewish people not the country of Germany is a hole because most German citizens (that were not jewish) had better looser gun laws to enjoy.

 

[qazwsxedc34]

Hey I'm Jewish and had family members live through World War 2.

The issues isnt Jewish people weren't allowed to own guns it's that they were forced into ghetto communities and we're a minority in the country. Even if they had guns they wouldnt be able to fight off the Third Reich. It would have made a very little difference. It took multiple countries to take down the Nazis giving Jewish people guns wouldnt have solved the problem.

This example is completely out of context because you're talking about taking over the minority of Jewish people not the country of Germany is a hole because most German citizens (that were not jewish) had better looser gun laws to enjoy.

Why do you not accept the fact that Hitler's goal was to disarm the undesirables in the population? Initially, everyone was merely required to register their own guns. Then, right before he took over as a dictator, he had the authorities confiscate said guns.

Why even state that you have Jewish family members that lived through WWII, does that make you points anymore valid?

"Even if they had guns they wouldnt be able to fight off the Third Reich.”

And your point?

I do agree that German citizens had looser gun law to enjoy.

 

[deleted5]

Why do you not accept the fact that Hitler's goal was to disarm the undesirables in the population? Initially, everyone was merely required to register their own guns. Then, right before he took over as a dictator, he had the authorities confiscate said guns.

Why even state that you have Jewish family members that lived through WWII, does that make you points anymore valid?

"Even if they had guns they wouldnt be able to fight off the Third Reich.”

And your point?

I do agree that German citizens had looser gun law to enjoy.

Youre wrong. The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. But under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition."

What people in the usa are we trying to take guns away from with these new laws? Mentally unstable not jews or regular people what are you saying mentally unstable people have a right to own a gun?

Quote it again you seem to be missing my point Hitler didn't take away guns he did the exact opposite.

"I do agree that German citizens had looser gun law to enjoy." How'd that work out?

Yeah family members lived through it so I can tell you that owning a gun in that time wouldn't have solved anything. Jews had WAY more issues going on than not owning a gun, why are we talking about this?

 

[onenerdykid]

Comparing the freeing of slaves to banning guns is quite a stretch my friend. One grants freedom the other infringes on it. Not a good example.

I was not actually comparing the freeing of slaves to banning guns. My argument was to show that the Constitution is not infallible and this is due to its obvious inclusion of slavery and creating a lesser status of human being. It is not our ultimate moral compass and it has been very wrong in the past. The Constitution should be a reflection of sane policy in every present generation. And to do that, we need to be able to call into question 200 year old laws pertaining to muskets and militias.

The second amendment is absolutely as vital today as it was 200 years ago. I can guarantee you the Jews in Nazi Germany would have wished they could have owned weapons. If Jews had legal access to firearms they wouldn't have been rounded up and slaughtered.

I can't for the life of me understand why people are so hung up over guns. If YOU dont want to own a gun then don't but don't remove MY freedom to own a firearm. I am a firm believer in more freedom not less, any infringement upon my right to own semiautomatic firearms is a joke. My guns must be the laziest guns in the world as they've never gotten up on their own and killed anyone. Until they do its society you should focus on.

If you honestly think that if the Jews in Nazi Germany were all armed then they would have prevented the Holocaust then you completely mistaken and have been drinking the NRA cool-aid for far too long. Even if all able bodied men, women, and children had assault rifles, a light resistance is all that would result. A resistance that would have ultimately been defeated by the better trained and far better equipped Nazi army. Seriously, if the SS knew that a bunch of gun-wielding Jews were holed up in a building, they would just blow up the building or roll tanks in or use some other vastly more powerful weapon that they had access to. Jews with small arms would not have prevented the Holocaust.

Now where I will agree with you both is in our personal right to self-defense. I call attention to the applicability of the 2nd amendment because it is hopelessly outdated and does not reflect the modern world we live in. What the 2nd amendment should reflect is our right to personal self-defense and as a result of this truly human right is the ability to own a gun. I am not and never have been a proponent of banning all guns. In a violent world, we need to be able to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our property from bad people and as of this moment that means being able to own a gun. On this point I agree with both of you.

In so far as we have a personal right to self-defense, we should be able to own weapons that reflect this right and need. Right now this means being able to own certain guns, but if we were to invent a phaser-like weapon that fully incapacitated an attacker without killing him then the argument for owning a gun fully disappears. But, obviously, we are not there yet. Guns are still the best solution we have for personal self-defense.

I also fully agree with you that guns are completely harmless pieces of metal that will cause no wrong on their own. They all require the will of a human being in order to be tools for good or tools for bad. But given the destruction that guns are capable of producing, there ought to be more training, background checks, mental health exams (pre and post sale), gun registration, and safety classes that all gun owners should be made to attend. This should be akin to something like a pilot's license, because after all it is a very serious piece of weaponry that requires a certain knowledge and training in order to effectively and safely use. When untrained and unable citizens are free to own destructive weapons, it will be like the wild west- a society that modern people will not want to live in. However, when trained and able citizens own destructive weapons, then that is much more acceptable and encouraged for (hopefully) obvious reasons.

I am all for owning a gun, but with obvious and rational restrictions. In this day and age, I do see them as a viable way to defend one's self. As such, they should not all be made illegal. But to think that the 2nd amendment (in its current form) is applicable today as it was in 1776 is misguided. What we need is to keep our personal right to self-defense and right now this means being allowed to own a gun. When a better/safer weapon emerges that can stop an attacker without killing them comes into existence, then the need to own a gun ceases to exist.

 

[ImNotARacist]

Youre wrong. The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. But under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition."

You need to research what happened to "Jews" and "undesirables" between 1933 and 1938.

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not "politically reliable." During the five years of repression that followed, society was "cleansed" by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them "free," and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews. In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many "enemies of the state" had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned. The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community, to render it defenseless so that its "ill-gotten" property could be redistributed as an entitlement to the German "Volk." The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo.

its a shame you don't know anything about the persecution of your people.

 

[ImNotARacist]

I was not actually comparing the freeing of slaves to banning guns. My argument was to show that the Constitution is not infallible and this is due to its obvious inclusion of slavery and creating a lesser status of human being. It is not our ultimate moral compass and it has been very wrong in the past. The Constitution should be a reflection of sane policy in every present generation. And to do that, we need to be able to call into question 200 year old laws pertaining to muskets and militias.

Obvious inclusion?

Slavery was popular at the time and if it had not been included in the constitution it would not have been ratified.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/content/pdf/lesson-19.pdf

equating reasonable compromise to the founding fathers having poor moral compasses is blasphemy. The founding fathers are sacred to this country. You can reduce almost any countries foundation back to poor morals and the exploitation of people. If you think leaders of a lot of countries don't have wonky morals you are also living in ignorance.

Regulation is not the answer. It will cause more separation between the people and its government. What you suggest could potentially bar a veteran from owning a gun. How ironic...

what you suggest may end "mass shootings". Which by the way, are basically a non existent problem when compared to automobile deaths and death from diet realted disease.

900 people in 7 years? Who gives a shit....

Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.

Theres nothing in the Bill of Rights about smoking. Why aren't we talking about banning Cigarettes? I'd rather save 1,300 people everyday than 900 people over 7 years....

There is is no mass shooting problem. The only problem we have is the media.

 

[onenerdykid]

equating reasonable compromise to the founding fathers having poor moral compasses is blasphemy. The founding fathers are sacred to this country

Ha, that's so characteristic of you... /sarcasm. Given that you have often posted that you do not share your true beliefs/opinions, I will count this statement among your troll posts.

But I do agree with you that mass shootings are just the tip of the ice berg that is gun violence, among the other heap of needless deaths that are plaguing this country.

 

[deleted5]

You need to research what happened to "Jews" and "undesirables" between 1933 and 1938.

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not "politically reliable." During the five years of repression that followed, society was "cleansed" by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them "free," and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews. In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many "enemies of the state" had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned. The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community, to render it defenseless so that its "ill-gotten" property could be redistributed as an entitlement to the German "Volk." The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo.

its a shame you don't know anything about the persecution of your people.

Copy and paste all you want from the NRA (lol some restrictions could be slightly liberalized) you don't know what you're talking about.

Who are the undesirables in this situation with background checks? o it's mentally unstable people that want to kill others. And in the situation you just posted about even though it's wrong, that's not why Jewish people were sent to concentration camps. you're trying to prove my point that taking away guns stops people from fighting back............ aka mentally unstable people will stop shooting other people if we have safe guards put into place.

So I don't even see why you're arguing with me over background checks it seems we agree.

 

[ImNotARacist]

Wow, that was recieved quite well. Good job guys.

for real tho, who spends $1500 on a fucking gun?

A Republican.

 

[Charlie_Kelly]

maybe if LIBERALS didn't put on as may gun restrictions one of the victims would've been carrying and could've saved many of lives...

Ah this fucking dumb argument again.

Nice grammar btw, makes you seem very intelligent.

 

[Wis_Skier_23]

If you honestly think that if the Jews in Nazi Germany were all armed then they would have prevented the Holocaust then you completely mistaken and have been drinking the NRA cool-aid for far too long. Even if all able bodied men, women, and children had assault rifles, a light resistance is all that would result. A resistance that would have ultimately been defeated by the better trained and far better equipped Nazi army. Seriously, if the SS knew that a bunch of gun-wielding Jews were holed up in a building, they would just blow up the building or roll tanks in or use some other vastly more powerful weapon that they had access to. Jews with small arms would not have prevented the Holocaust.

Now where I will agree with you both is in our personal right to self-defense. I call attention to the applicability of the 2nd amendment because it is hopelessly outdated and does not reflect the modern world we live in. What the 2nd amendment should reflect is our right to personal self-defense and as a result of this truly human right is the ability to own a gun. I am not and never have been a proponent of banning all guns. In a violent world, we need to be able to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our property from bad people and as of this moment that means being able to own a gun. On this point I agree with both of you.

In so far as we have a personal right to self-defense, we should be able to own weapons that reflect this right and need. Right now this means being able to own certain guns, but if we were to invent a phaser-like weapon that fully incapacitated an attacker without killing him then the argument for owning a gun fully disappears. But, obviously, we are not there yet. Guns are still the best solution we have for personal self-defense.

I also fully agree with you that guns are completely harmless pieces of metal that will cause no wrong on their own. They all require the will of a human being in order to be tools for good or tools for bad. But given the destruction that guns are capable of producing, there ought to be more training, background checks, mental health exams (pre and post sale), gun registration, and safety classes that all gun owners should be made to attend. This should be akin to something like a pilot's license, because after all it is a very serious piece of weaponry that requires a certain knowledge and training in order to effectively and safely use. When untrained and unable citizens are free to own destructive weapons, it will be like the wild west- a society that modern people will not want to live in. However, when trained and able citizens own destructive weapons, then that is much more acceptable and encouraged for (hopefully) obvious reasons.

I am all for owning a gun, but with obvious and rational restrictions. In this day and age, I do see them as a viable way to defend one's self. As such, they should not all be made illegal. But to think that the 2nd amendment (in its current form) is applicable today as it was in 1776 is misguided. What we need is to keep our personal right to self-defense and right now this means being allowed to own a gun. When a better/safer weapon emerges that can stop an attacker without killing them comes into existence, then the need to own a gun ceases to exist.

The jews lived amongst the other German civilian population, its not like you can just roll up in tanks and bomb them without causing collateral damage. Its like ISIS in the Middle East, they aren't just sitting isolated as an easy target they are spread amongst other civilians. Need you also forget that Germany was fighting a world war Jews were just a soft target having been unarmed. Even if Jews were captured, a well armed resistance could have stopped trains before they got to concentration camps and dried up supply lines. You can't attack the Nazi regime like an army, the Jews would have had to fight using guerrilla tactics. Either way I guess by your logic its better to roll over and be slaughtered than stand up and fight. I am sure the Jews would have rather died by bullet vs. being tortured for years at concentration camps. By taking away guns entirely you give them a death sentence.

I am happy you at least will admit guns on their own are harmless and that its the will of the person which is the problem. I will say that guns in the hands of someone who is careless or not well trained is very dangerous. I would be open to a training course to own a firearm such as hunters safety. Having taken the course it teaches you valuable lessons about safe gun ownership and how dangerous negligence is with a gun. On the flipside a mental health screens and gun registries are a waste of taxpayer dollars. I don't know what guns the military has and they don't need to know what I have either. Knowing what gun everyone owns and how many bullets is simply a number on a piece of paper it does nothing to keep people safe. Gun registries just lead to gun confiscations later down the road. Its happened in numerous countries around the world and we are naïve to think we are above that.

The only way to stand up against terrorism by mass shooting is through concealed carry. The police aren't everywhere and their response time allows for many people to be killed in the process. Sure there's no way to defend against a bomb but if more responsible gun owners carried more these attacks could be stopped sooner with less lives lost. Well trained gun owners serve as an extension of the police at that point.

 

[onenerdykid]

The jews lived amongst the other German civilian population, its not like you can just roll up in tanks and bomb them without causing collateral damage. Its like ISIS in the Middle East, they aren't just sitting isolated as an easy target they are spread amongst other civilians. Need you also forget that Germany was fighting a world war Jews were just a soft target having been unarmed. Even if Jews were captured, a well armed resistance could have stopped trains before they got to concentration camps and dried up supply lines. You can't attack the Nazi regime like an army, the Jews would have had to fight using guerrilla tactics. Either way I guess by your logic its better to roll over and be slaughtered than stand up and fight. I am sure the Jews would have rather died by bullet vs. being tortured for years at concentration camps. By taking away guns entirely you give them a death sentence.

I am happy you at least will admit guns on their own are harmless and that its the will of the person which is the problem. I will say that guns in the hands of someone who is careless or not well trained is very dangerous. I would be open to a training course to own a firearm such as hunters safety. Having taken the course it teaches you valuable lessons about safe gun ownership and how dangerous negligence is with a gun. On the flipside a mental health screens and gun registries are a waste of taxpayer dollars. I don't know what guns the military has and they don't need to know what I have either. Knowing what gun everyone owns and how many bullets is simply a number on a piece of paper it does nothing to keep people safe. Gun registries just lead to gun confiscations later down the road. Its happened in numerous countries around the world and we are naïve to think we are above that.

As you should gather from my previous post, I fully support the right to self-defense and therefore the right of Jews to defend themselves against the Nazis. I am by no means saying they should roll over and just be slaughtered. But to think that the right to gun ownership on its own would have prevented the Holocaust is such a leap that it is a ridiculous position to hold. Even in places where it is legal to own a gun, it does not mean that everyone actually owns a gun. Therefore, had guns not been confiscated it still follows that not every Jew would have been able to stage a resistance because simply not enough of them owned a gun(s). Both things need to be in place: the ability to own a gun and the fact that people do. If you have the right, but then don't own a gun then its not possible to shoot your attacker. This was the scenario that many Jews were in prior to gun confiscation laws going into place. To think that if Nazi Germany extended the right to own guns to Jews they would have been able to prevent the Holocaust is a non-starter because it's not a realistic position to maintain- they all didn't own guns in the first place, which they would have needed to in order to even have a chance at preventing the entire Holocaust from happening. That argument is so detached from reality it doesn't even deserve more of a response.

Gun registries can lead to gun confiscations down the road, but it does not mean that they will. It's the same as the government knowing how many cars I have. Can they come and take my cars away? Yes. Will it happen? Most likely not. Registration alone does not imply confiscation. And as long as the 2nd amendment is in place (or another amendment guaranteeing the right to self-defense) then confiscation cannot happen anyway. The slippery slope fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason.

Currently, most countries in the EU (that I can think of) require gun owners to register their guns and their guns aren't being confiscated. They also perform background checks, require gun owners to attend yearly gun safety and marksmanship courses, yearly mental health examinations, and (in Austria at least) the police come to your house yearly and make sure you know how to properly operate and care for your gun. Doing all of this definitely decreases the risk that a gun is in the hands of the wrong person. It also ensures that the gun owner is deemed fit to own a gun during the years after he/she has been cleared to buy it in the first place. I can imagine that you will not like these ideas, but you do need to acknowledge that a gun is a incredibly dangerous weapon and also that one of the jobs of the government is to ensure that all of its citizens are kept safe. You (a common citizen) have the right to own a gun, but other citizens of the same country have the right to their safety as well. Both of these rights should be acknowledged and protected.

 

[TZA.]

'merica