Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Dissappearing Posts and Threads


Stephan55
 Share

Recommended Posts

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

 

I think this can apply to just about everyone, every company, every school, every business, every institution including universities, even sciences and other educational fields. For example, I keep hearing on the news that astronomers have "found" or "discovered" a new earth-like planet, and they often show a picture of it. Well, those pictures are fakes. They are CGI images. Nobody has ever "seen" any of these planets because they are too small to see. They detect small wiggles in the position of a star and calculate that some planet sized object might be causing the wiggles. What about that VW hoax in which they faked their MPG ratings with computer tricks, exposed on the news a few weeks ago?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thread giving a heads-up to Ben about my post count took a trip to the corn field.

We know, one of the questions posted here was WHY?  :unsure:

There has been a general consenus developing about that, but if you didn't delete it yourself, why do you think that the Mod pulled it?

The last that I saw it was a pretty benign thread, up to that point anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

...It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

 

Ah, but Stephan, you're forgetting about the concept of "American Exceptionism" here, my friend!

 

Ya see, here in THIS country, GUNS, not "the truth" are supposedly "the greatest enemy of the State"!!!

 

Well, at least according to the N.R.A., anyway.

 

LOL

 

(...sorry, couldn't resist) ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you watch TRIUMPH OF THE WILL and turn off the sound entirely, and read all the English subtitles that translate each of Hitler’s speeches. You will read typical political speeches, just like the kind we hear in the US every day..... “We’ll make Germany great again! We’ll put everyone to work. We’ll build a lot of good stuff (highways, cars, etc). Nobody will go hungry. Every German family will be happy. We’ll all work together to achieve this goal, and we’ll make the New Germany last a thousand years!!”

 

Seen in the context of the time, it's easy to understand that speeches like this would have meant much more to German citizens than to the common US citizenry of today.

 

Germany had been punished and belittled quite extensively after World War 1 and there was no modern nation on earth more affected by hardship as a result. The National Socialist rhetoric represented hope and a return of pride to many Germans under those circumstances.

 

We all are well acquainted now with the extent of evil-doing that would come to transpire in such enormous scope after 1935 and I think that may compel us to see these speeches differently than the world saw them then, which may also mean that we ourselves, "benefitting" from hindsight, can tend to be a little more sure about what we see than we actually deserve to be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know, one of the questions posted here was WHY?  :unsure:

There has been a general consenus developing about that, but if you didn't delete it yourself, why do you think that the Mod pulled it?

The last that I saw it was a pretty benign thread, up to that point anyway.

After I posted it, I wasn't on the boards for quite a while, and when I came back it was gone. I'm certainly not losing any sleep about it. Not one of my better efforts at getting yocks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ah, but Stephan, you're forgetting about the concept of "American Exceptionism" here, my friend!

 

Ya see, here in THIS country, GUNS, not "the truth" are supposedly "the greatest enemy of the State"!!!

 

Well, at least according to the N.R.A., anyway.

 

LOL

 

(...sorry, couldn't resist) ;)

This is a very touchy subject, especially these days.

Dare I share a taste of this open can of worms? :unsure:  Okay, I dare.

 

The NRA is fond of saying that in the name of "Law and Order" Hitler enacted gun laws that disarmed the people.

I've personally not been able to locate this reported Hitler "quote": "To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens."

So perhaps it is a paraphrase of another Hitler or Goebbels statement, or taken out of it's proper context entirely.

 

To conquer a nation, one must first disarm its citizens by re-inventing their collective memory of the past,” is attributed to Goebbels.

 

In literature, Hitler is reported to have said,

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police."

but that was reportedly said in 1942, well after Operation "Barbarossa," the invasion of Russia and other eastern countries.

 

Looking at actual German law, as it pertained to regulation of firearms, from post WW1 to the Fall of the Reich, it is apparent to me that the 1919 Treaty of Versailles imposed such harsh reparations upon Germany, including an attempt to eliminate its ability to wage future war, both as a nation and as a people, that the German government was forced to pass some highly restrictive gun legislation in order to comply, i.e. the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership and the 1920 Law on the Disarmament of the People. These laws effectively banned the private possession of firearms and ammunition in Germany, and greatly restricted the number of military weapons allowed.

By 1928 the fragile Weimar Republic, was under political assault from all sides (i.e. by the National Socialist German Workers' Party, aka the Nazi party and Communists), and on the verge of collapse. In response to such political pressure the 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition was passed, rescending the highly restrictive 1919 legislation and again allowed German citizens to possess firearms, albeit under strict and heavily regulated licensure, i.e. the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a gun permit."

 

When the repercusions from the 1929 U.S. stock market crash and depression, hit Germany's tetering economy it pushed it over the precipice, allowing radicals such as Adolph Hitler to gain such popular support with his rhetorical speech that he soon was in control of the government. Under Hitler, the 1938 German Weapons Act, was passed which superceded the 1928 law.

Although this law appeared to lighten the restrictions for some Germans, it installed even greater regulatory restrictions that would prove catastrophic for others.

 

Per Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany

 

Citizens were still 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."[5]
  • The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[6]
  • Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[6]
  • The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP (the National Socialist German Workers' Party, aka the Nazi's) members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
  • Manufacture of arms and ammunition continued to require a permit, with the revision that such permits would no longer be issued to Jews or any company part-owned by Jews. Jews were consequently forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[5]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

 

On November 11, 1938 (the day after Kristallnacht) the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons were promulgated by Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, effectively depriving all Jews living under the Third Reich of the right to possess any form of weapons including truncheons, knives, or firearms and ammunition.[7]

Before that, some police forces used the pre-existing "trustworthiness" clause to disarm Jews on the basis that "the Jewish population 'cannot be regarded as trustworthy'".[5]

 

The rest, as we know, is history.

 

How all this relates to the NRA and past-present U.S. gun regulation and trends is debateable.

 

I am a Gun owner and support the 2nd Amendment within it's original 1791 context,

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, that the right belongs to individuals, is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices and limiting state and local governments to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right as incorporated in the Bill of Rights.

 

The second amendment was not enacted to allow firearms just for the purpose of subsistence hunting, in those days that was a given. The primary reason that the amendment was included within the states Bill of Rights was to put some teeth into it. To safeguard the people from any centralized government, including it's own, that could one day become despotic and tyrannical.

In that day, civilian weaponry was on a par, and in the case of small arms was frequently superior to that of the military.

A well armed citizenry was an insurance policy to thwart any government that would turn its military and police against the will of its citizens. Without the second amendment, there would be no way to insure the security of the other nine, nor the ability to restore the right of self government to the people, should it be taken away.

These were real concerns then, and are still valid in the world today.

In the late 18th century the United States had just fought a bloody revolution, and as a fledgling "democracy," was a historically rarely attempted form of government. France was in the throes of it's own revolution, and the world would soon be thrust into another "world war" to determine the balance of power. In the mid 19th century an even bloodier Civil War was fought over here, to determine whether state rights superceded the right or power of the central government.

 

Regarding the policy of disarmament and displacement of "native" or subjugated people, as was implemented by Hitler, it is important to note that he did not invent that strategem, and was correct when he stated that it has been practiced in one form or another by all conquering powers since the beginning of history. There has been no powerful government that has not practiced it, including the United States... Not in our distant past, nor recent present. Our policy has always been to disarm those against us, and to support with arms those who support us. Why, because an unarmed population is easier to subjugate.

Even on a local level it just makes sense to first disarm any criminal suspect.

 

That said, I think "we" are going way off the board with extremism in this country.

While I support the individual right to bear arms, I also believe that exercising that right should require responsibilty, i.e. Responsible Gun Ownership. In my opinion, ALL gun owners should be required to undergo proficiency training with every firearm that they possess, as a requisite for ownership. I think that the right to carry concealed firearms should not be issued carte blanche, but only after a need to do so has been demonstrated. I also think that parents should be held accountable for the actions of their minor children, especially when a crime has been commited with a firearm that the parent owned.

So I do support reasonable and responsible regulation of firearms and think that the NRA should do also. I think if the NRA was more active in self regulation, and promotion training of existing and prospective gun owners, there would likely be less need for more restrictive gun laws.

Everytime some crazy shooting takes place, it places all gun owners on the defensive. And the NRA goes off the deep end, pushing for even less restriction which makes it easier for another crack pot to go on another rampage. It is a vicious circle that can only lead to lawless anarchy encouraging more people to either want more guns or to cry out for a kind of heavy handed regulation that suppresses all gun ownership. Both of those extremes are appalling to me.

IMO There has to be some reasonable middle ground that we all can stand upon.

I am not for any form of hastily enacted reactive legislation. First, I'd like to see the existing laws adequately enforced.

 

Do I have a "reasonable" fear that licensure and regulation can make it easy for a despotic or totalitarian government to confiscate firearms as Hitler did when he disarmed Jews whereever he found them?

Yes, there is always that possibility, anywhere, which is why we must remain a vigilant, proactive society regarding ALL things.

But what scares me more right now, than my own government, is my cooky and well armed neighbors.

I don't think going back to the lawless days of the "old west" is a wise direction to be heading.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 more posts to go DGF!!!  How's that for changing the topic?

Are you going to give us at least a two-page essay of some kind on number 50,000?

And DGF I want a full report on your dinner with Ben at Musso & Frank's! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A "well regulated militia" means what it says.  

Well regulated refers to the states controlling the militia-all aspects of it.  Not that everybody who wants one can own a gun.  It was also implied that these regulated militias would be how the national army was expanded if the need arose.  

It also acknowledged that many militia members would have to keep their weapons in their homes as there were no armorys or other places to store weapons in vast parts of the country.

Militia referred to an organization created and sanctioned by the state governments as an entity of the government.  After all, militia officers were commissioned by the state governments, even if elected by the units themselves.

However, over time the states passed the responsiblitiy for militias to the Federal government in the creation of the National Guard. The National Guard and its members are essentially funded by the Federal government-weapons, equipment, pay, retirement, health care, etc.  Therefore, the militias became a part of the Federal military forces.

The 2nd Amendment was not referring at all to the various "state guards" or "unorganized militias" that now exist.  Much less to any individual rights.

Right of the people is a reference to the people as a body, not individuals per se.

Incidentally, there is no restriction on states at all to regulate weapons in any manner they choose.

Bottom line, 2nd Amendment refers to well regulated militias, not individuals.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A "well regulated militia" means what it says.  

Well regulated refers to the states controlling the militia-all aspects of it.  Not that everybody who wants one can own a gun.  It was also implied that these regulated militias would be how the national army was expanded if the need arose.  

It also acknowledged that many militia members would have to keep their weapons in their homes as there were no armorys or other places to store weapons in vast parts of the country.

Militia referred to an organization created and sanctioned by the state governments as an entity of the government.  After all, militia officers were commissioned by the state governments, even if elected by the units themselves.

However, over time the states passed the responsiblitiy for militias to the Federal government in the creation of the National Guard. The National Guard and its members are essentially funded by the Federal government-weapons, equipment, pay, retirement, health care, etc.  Therefore, the militias became a part of the Federal military forces.

The 2nd Amendment was not referring at all to the various "state guards" or "unorganized militias" that now exist.  Much less to any individual rights.

Right of the people is a reference to the people as a body, not individuals per se.

Incidentally, there is no restriction on states at all to regulate weapons in any manner they choose.

Bottom line, 2nd Amendment refers to well regulated militias, not individuals.

 

Cid, I appreciate your input.

 

While I do agree with you in part, I do not agree with you in whole. In particular, your last paragraph.

I will attempt to expound why I disagree.

 

There is a bigger historical picture that I think should be considered.

Please bear with me....

 

There was a great deal of opposition and debate over the ratification of the constitution going on during the 1789 Philidelphia convention.

The Federalists proposed a stronger central government. The anti-Federalists did not want to surrender the rights of the individual states to a central government stronger than themselves.

In those days, each state was like an individual country. Though most of them spoke english, they were at that time a loose confederation, that had been loosely bound together during the recent revolution and had been loosely following the Articles of Confederation, which had been created by the 2nd Continental Congress, and ratified during the conflict, in 1781.

The purpose of the Constitutional Convention was to address the weaknesses within those articles.

For example:

During the war the "United" states had accrued liabilities and debt, both domestic and foreign, that needed to be addressed.

But after the war, they could not come to agreement as to what each state owed.

At that time each state had its own currency or script, or relied upon the British £.

Hamilton (a staunch Federalist) promoted a National Bank, others, such as Jefferson opposed it.

There were many, many different issues, but one which they all seemed to hold in common was a mutual distrust of a "too" powerful centralized authority. 

James Madison introduced a series of amendments that would hopefully appease by "guaranteeing" the states rights on the issues of greatest contention. These were whittled down to 12 which Congress approved, and submitted for state ratification.

Articles 3-12 ultimately became the Ten Amendments known then as the "States Bill of Rights," commonly referred to as The Bill of Rights

Due to in part to the above mentioned "distrust" the Second Amendment was inserted to protect the the Bill of Rights should the Federal Government become capricious. It guaranteed the right of the individual states to defend themselves, should it become necessary to do so.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

I will not go into great depth as to the roots of the 2nd Amendment here, as that would be an even lengthier dissertation,...

suffice it to say that because the 2nd Amendment had strong roots in English Common Law and the 1689 English Bill of Rights, it was an understood "inference" that the right to bear arms supported the individual's natural rights of self-defense, and resistance to oppression, as well as the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

 

And as result of this "compromise" the Constitution, as law of the land, was finally ratified by all 13 states on December 15, 1791, with the Ten Amendments added.

 

So we are in agreement up to this point, and I do not refute the evolutionary processes that you have articulated regarding those "State regulated" militias into their modern transformation (as they are used today).

 

With few exceptions, the right of the individual to carry firearms was a given non-issue during the 18th and 19th centuries.

It wasn't until the rampant lawlessnes during the "Prohibition" of the "roaring twenties," that national regulation to private gun ownership eventually evolved.

Prior to the National Firearms Act of 1934, it was "legal" for American citizens to own Tommy guns (if they could afford them).

In support of your "argument," in 1939, the Supreme court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit civilian possession of any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

 

The Gun Control Act of 1968, was next big evolution in U.S. gun control, in response to the Kennedy and King assassinations. 

 

However, in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court hearkened back to the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and handed down a landmark decision that held the 2nd amendment does protect an individuals right to possess and carry firearms, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.

 

This was further clearified by a 2010 Supreme Court decision that determined whether or not the Second Amendment only applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" is protected by the Second Amendment. This decision should have cleared up any uncertainty from the 2008 ruling as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states and individuals.

 

And it is also in reference to this that I said in my post:

"I am a Gun owner and support the 2nd Amendment within it's original 1791 context,  

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, that the right belongs to individuals, (though) is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices and limiting state and local governments to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right as incorporated in the Bill of Rights.

 

The need to have arms for self-defence was not really in question at the inception of The 2nd Amendment.

It was universally understood that People all around the world, since time immemorial, have armed themselves for the protection of themselves and others, and as organized nations began to appear these arrangements extended to the protection of the state.

But that evolution does not abrogate the individual right to armed self defense.

 

Based on the above and the existing Supreme Court interpretation, I believe that I stand on solid ground, with the assertion of my original post in this regard.

At least until a succeeding appointed court over rules this courts interpretation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the primary subject of this thread for a moment,

and the silly extremes of censorship on these boards,

check out a particular post in

http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/topic/55312-we-have-been-visited-by-the-spam-fairy/

 

in re: that very topic

 

I'm at the point where I've got one foot out the door of this place. If it keeps up, I'm gone.

(much to the delight of any number of you, I am sure.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The need to have arms for self-defence was not really in question at the inception of The 2nd Amendment.

 

 

Why does no one ever point out that the "arms" the Constitution was written about were single-shot muskets, which required about 1 full minute to re-load.

 

Two guys with their Constitutionally legal  "arms":

 

revwarmilitiareenactors.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...