The origins and true purpose of gun control

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by thewap, Jan 7, 2016.

  1. thewap, Jan 7, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2016

    thewap macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #1
    While gun control advocates focus demonizing the NRA, the following gun rights advocates are never given media exposure or mentioned, so they made a video themselves in 2009- this is a two part series.

    Comments welcome.

    Part1


    Part2






    --- Post Merged, Jan 7, 2016 ---
    And no guns for jews video -

    http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m2/movieplay-nogunsforjews-yt.php
     
  2. kapolani macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Location:
    USA
    #2
    Never made this connection before.

    Enlightening.
     
  3. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #3
    There is no good reason to demonize the NRA, but to fairly criticize their tireless effort to establish their religion of gun on the Nation. Sadly they are winning, and I would not be surprised if there was a racial aspect involved in original push for gun control.
     
  4. b0fh666 macrumors 6502a

    b0fh666

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Location:
    south
    #4
    shocking how some ppl do not get it and keep whining about 'mass shootings'.

    who cares.

    civil rights >> all

    lose them, and you will realize that.
     
  5. lowendlinux, Jan 7, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2016

    lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #5
    There is no hegemony on the pro gun side I'm getting a bit tired of being classified with the open carry idiots and CC at all costs anywhere people. Until the extremes of both side **** we won't get anywhere and really the only saving grace of electing an R for the next president is the "gundamentalists" ( I love that word) will actually ****.
     
  6. thewap thread starter macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #6
    The 1968 gun control act which all modern day gun controls elaborate on, was a direct translation almost word for word of the 1938 Nazi Gun control act, to restrict guns from undesirables...
     
  7. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #7
    This is absurd. The 1938 law in Germany relaxed gun laws. It deregulated the transfer of rifles, shotguns, and ammunition, lowered the minimum purchase age to 18, and tripled permit lengths. It also substantially increased the number of people eligible for exemptions to all restrictions.

    Pointless scaremongering will get you nowhere. If you have to resort to this level of inaccurate comparisons to the Nazis, then you are losing the argument.
     
  8. thewap, Jan 7, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2016

    thewap thread starter macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #8

    The 1938 law in germany relaxed the rights of the Aryans yes..
    PS don't shoot the messenger (pardon pun), interested in hearing your critic of the producers of the video and how inaccurate you think they are - with source please- thank you.

    No guns for jews video might shed some enlightement as to the nazis providing *more rights*.
    http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m2/movieplay-nogunsforjews-yt.php
    --- Post Merged, Jan 7, 2016 ---
    The video claims there is a modern racial aspect to gun control. As you may know, gun licenses in most states are issued only by discretion of a judge (2nd amendment rights be damned) after having paid large fees for applications (which poor African communities cannot afford).

    Respectfully, these videos are not by or from the NRA.
     
  9. sim667 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    #9
    There's more of a civil right to bring up a child in a safe environment, than there is to own a gun....

    But I'm guessing most gun nuts don't really care about dead kids.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 7, 2016 ---
    It will have relaxed gun laws for Aryans, because at that point "undesirables" would have been stripped of any rights.

    Thats basic history.
     
  10. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #10
    Those against gun-control blindly view any regulation that touches on guns, no matter what it is or what it does, to be an affront to their rights.

    Those against gun proliferation blindly view any pro-gun group as crazy or otherwise not worthy of paying attention to, no matter how valid their slippery slope argument may be.

    Both are wrong for being so stubborn.

    All our rights have reasonable restrictions, and they should:
    • Prohibitions on falsely yelling fire in a crowded movie theater or spewing hate isn't an infringement of the first amendment.
    • A police officer standing on a public street and looking through an open window into a home or detaining someone temporarily to defuse a violent situation is not an infringement of the fourth amendment.
    • Restriction on how tall or wide you can build your house isn't an infringement of the firth amendment.
    • I can go on and on - every right has some limits, it is unreasonable to extend any of them forever and apply them in all circumstances.
    The second amendment isn't special in this regard, nor should it be.
     
  11. thewap thread starter macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #11
    • Prohibitions on falsely yelling fire in a crowded movie theater or spewing hate isn't an infringement of the first amendment.
    *1rst amendment rights have nothing to do with fraudulent claims that cause harm.
    • A police officer standing on a public street and looking through an open window into a home or detaining someone temporarily to defuse a violent situation is not an infringement of the fourth amendment.
    The fourth amendment is not about deterring violence, it is about unreasonable search and seizure.
    • Restriction on how tall or wide you can build your house isn't an infringement of the firth amendment.
    The fifth amendment is about self incrimination, not about how you build your house.
     
  12. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #12
    But this does not let the NRA off the hook, which you brought up in your original post.
     
  13. thewap thread starter macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #13
    This about these producers and organization point of view, that is the point of this thread.
     
  14. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #14
    You felt the need to mention the demonization of NRA, a defensive statement? I responded to that along with acknowledging the point of your thread.
     
  15. thewap thread starter macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #15
    Fair enough.
     
  16. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #16
    That's exactly my point. The first amendment is written very broadly. If you interpret it in a vacuum and purely textually, it would seem the government can't stop you from committing any fraud or using your words to cause any type of harm. But it's not interpreted in a vacuum, nor should it. It is interpreted in context, and thus the freedom is not absolute and unlimited. It is possible to balance the importance of this right with the need to restrict certain bad things.


    I never said it was. It's about what the government or it's agents can or can't do to you. Same as above - the fourth amendment is implicated in pretty much every interaction between government and person. When put in context, there are some things that otherwise seem to be a violation that in fact are not.

    First, the fifth amendment contains the takings clause - that the government has to pay fair compensation when they take your property by eminent domain. Go read it. It theory, when they restrict how you can build your house they are taking away some part of your ownership right in that property - but this isn't a violation.

    There is no reason the second amendment should be interpreted in a vacuum. It should be interpreted in the proper context. Not every regulation is an infringement of your rights, just like not every gun will be used to kill.
     
  17. diamond.g macrumors 603

    diamond.g

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    Location:
    Virginia
    #17
    Wait. Is it true that I shouldn't expect the police to protect me from criminals?
     
  18. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #18
    Who cares about mass shootings? :confused:

    I do. I suspect most people do too.

    You are probably within a small minority to claim that they don't concern you.
     
  19. thewap, Jan 7, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2016

    thewap thread starter macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #19
    There is no reason the second amendment should be interpreted in a vacuum. It should be interpreted in the proper context. Not every regulation is an infringement of your rights, just like not every gun will be used to kill.[/QUOTE]

    That context that has been argued since the gun control began. Government will always make legal argument and impose laws to restrict all civil rights, the question is how far these restrictions will go.

    ie: restricting and controlling the 2nd amendment to the degree that the anti gun advocates preach, sets a legal precedent to restrict all other rights in the bill of rights in the same manner - for the *good of the people* IMO.

    Example: Free speech - register and license all persons for the right to post on the internet to deter hate speech for the safety of kids who may commit suicide? etc.. , create a homeland security force that can trump all rights...Oh wait..

    Since the SC deemed that govt and state has no legal obligation to protect the public, and enforcement or govt does not protect black communities from drug lords and their ilk, or anyone else for that matter except politicians and their cronies, why are permits in so many states subject to the discretion of a judge even if an applicant has passed all criteria of a law abiding citizen?. (If you are black and low income, no permit for you is probable at the dicretion of judges). Should this be a legal precedent for all rights?.

    Erosion of all rights is an issue that is become clearer these days, and always *for the good or safety of the people* according to govt.
     
  20. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #20
    This is obviously not true.

    Case in point: gay marriage.

    Government expanded civil rights, as it has done numerous times in the past.
     
  21. thewap, Jan 7, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2016

    thewap thread starter macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #21
    Gay marriage is a civil right yes, govt expanded civil rights due to mass protests in the past and political suicide if not - and helped by the black community exercising their gun rights, which lead to more gun control measures by the govt....

    Oddly divorce is not a federal issue and cannot be appealed at a federal level when your civil rights of due process have been violated.. (Gay community please take note).

    It can also be said that the same arguments made for gay rights at the SC (constitutional right, natural rights etc..) could also set precedent for more gun rights and the interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
    (enter the LGBT for Gun rights Organization)
     
  22. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #22
    Your point is that the government only erodes rights.

    This is obviously not the case.
     
  23. thewap thread starter macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #23
    *Erosion of all rights is an issue that is become clearer these days* is what I actually quoted.
     
  24. diamond.g macrumors 603

    diamond.g

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    Location:
    Virginia
    #24
    That depends on perspective, no?
     
  25. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #25
    As if that makes a difference. All of our rights are not eroding away. Some rights are even expanding.

    Your absolutist rhetoric may sound appealing to you and others, but it's not one based on facts, just emotion.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 7, 2016 ---
    Please elaborate.
     

Share This Page