Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Please provide the exact parallels between what Hitler enacted and what you believe Feinstein is going to enact.
Feinstein's bill allows us to own over 2000 different weapons, but specifically exempts police, firemen, government employees, and various other groups from those restrictions.
If her bill was reasonable it would apply to everyone. The fact that it doesn't apply to everyone means that it is a step toward tyranny, just like everything Hitler did.
So would you be safer from tyranny if you were allowed to own nuclear missiles since that would mean that you would be on a par with the government as far as weapons are concerned?
Would they have won if they fought back? Maybe not, but their fighting back would have made it a lot harder for the world to pretend nothing was happening. Everyone disappearing in the middle of the night is a lot easier to ignore than dead bodies piled in the streets.
By taking up arms against the state they would have criminalized themselves. Furthermore they had families whose lives they would be placing at risk. Not every human rights abuse can be defeated by resorting to violence.
Would they have won if they fought back? Maybe not, but their fighting back would have made it a lot harder for the world to pretend nothing was happening. Everyone disappearing in the middle of the night is a lot easier to ignore than dead bodies piled in the streets.
By taking up arms against the state they would have criminalized themselves. Furthermore they had families whose lives they would be placing at risk. Not every human rights abuse can be defeated by resorting to violence.
Would they have won if they fought back? Maybe not, but their fighting back would have made it a lot harder for the world to pretend nothing was happening. Everyone disappearing in the middle of the night is a lot easier to ignore than dead bodies piled in the streets.
By taking up arms against the state they would have criminalized themselves. Furthermore they had families whose lives they would be placing at risk. Not every human rights abuse can be defeated by resorting to violence.
The state had already made them criminals simply because they were born Jewish, thus losing all legitimacy as a government, and making your argument that they would make themselves criminals by resisting a testament to ignorance.
Yes, FUN!!!
1) If happiness is protecting the beaches, then you also have the right to protest the descruction of those beaches. You can do so in peace, with signs and everything, and no one can harm you because the police will arrest anyone who tries to hurt you for protesting.
2) If a cop says you confessed, and didnt document it, he has no case. It's called heresay. Courts have ruled against that. ALL confessions must be in writing, and most circuit courst now want them in writing AND to have the written confession to be videotaped. Do you not even watch "The First 48"???
2B) Despite what you see in Hollywood, almost all corrupt cops wash out within 5 years. In today's day in age, lawsuits and "Misconduct in Office" charges by the DOJ have almost virtually erased the Blue Wall of police coverup. Thank the FBI for cleaning up a vast majority of police corruption in the 70's and 80's.
2C) You also have a right against self-incrimination. So if you just walk into a PD, and say "I killed that missing girl"........but no other evidence exists, guess what? YOU WONT BE CHARGED. That is a phenomenon that happens very often. People want that notoriety. Cops have to weed out the fake confessions with evidence. So no, if you didnt confess, and there is no evidence.......or even if you DID confess, with absolutely no other evidence, you'd never be charged.
3) You are accusing me of providing "isolated examples" of how the govt protects our rights, and you counter with with.....yep, isolated examples of how it abuses our rights.
YOU MUST HAVE MISSED MY CHECKS AND BALANCES LESSON.
Where I explained how 1 government can hold another government accountable. So if 1 abuses your rights, another will take action. Like how the Dept of Justice or State Police WILL arrest local cops who beat the shit out of someone for no reason. A former coworker of mine at Atlanta PD did 3 years in prison for kneeing a handcuffed suspect in the face. DOJ doesnt play around with that. HOWEVER...stories like that dont sell newspapers. The news will plaster the abusive incident on the front page for a week. But the prosecution a year later wont get any coverage. It doesnt sell, and it leads to folks like you thinking what you see in Hollywood cop movies is reality.
If this were a football game, I'd be putting my 3rd string in right now. You're losing bad.
Would they have won if they fought back? Maybe not, but their fighting back would have made it a lot harder for the world to pretend nothing was happening. Everyone disappearing in the middle of the night is a lot easier to ignore than dead bodies piled in the streets.
By taking up arms against the state they would have criminalized themselves. Furthermore they had families whose lives they would be placing at risk. Not every human rights abuse can be defeated by resorting to violence.
The state had already made them criminals simply because they were born Jewish, thus losing all legitimacy as a government, and making your argument that they would make themselves criminals by resisting a testament to ignorance.
I protect my rights by using them. The people here who benefit from that think I am crazy.
Please explain exactly how using your rights benefits those people who think that you are crazy?
How did the people that insisted that MLK was crazy benefit from him exercising his rights?
Im debating a retard obviously.
If she spent 23 years in jail, that would put her case happening when....sometime in the 80's at latest? And, I referred you to how the DoJ and state govts spent a lot of time and effort in the 70's and 80's cleaning up police corruption to the low-point of corruption that we have today. AND...part of cleaning it up was requiring writtena and videotaped confessions, AND judges who are no longer willing to sign warrants with nothing but a confession as evidence.
See.....society progressed, even if you didnt.
[]
A single example of a government that consistently protects the rights of the people.
Just one.
.
In 1938 Hitler actually reversed the strict gun control regulations that had been in force since 1919.
He didn't reverse strict gun control, there is a huge misconception on what happened in 38.
The Hitler gun control lie - Salon.com
Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyones guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesnt make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.
University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitlers, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.
The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. 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.
The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning? Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews? What about public works Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not. These are merely implements that can be used for good or ill, much as gun advocates like to argue about guns themselves. If guns dont kill people, then neither does gun control cause genocide (genocidal regimes cause genocide).
Besides, Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldnt have had much success fighting back. Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better? he told Salon.
<The first fallacy is to assume that government is infallible.>
Who assumes this?
<The second fallacy is that owning guns protect any rights other than the right to own guns.>
They can and sometimes do protect the right to life
<The third fallacy is to assume that the government intends to deprive anyone of their guns>
The govt deprives convicted felons of guns (it's a good thing too)
<the fourth is the assumption that guns will actually protect anyone from anything at all.>
They do act as a deterrent for home invasions. Per capita there are far more home invasions in the U.K. than in the U.S.. In N.H. there are few burglaries due to the high rate of gun ownership. Just over 10% of U.S. burglaries are 'hot' burglaries while in England and Wales it's over 50% and climbing.
By taking up arms against the state they would have criminalized themselves. Furthermore they had families whose lives they would be placing at risk. Not every human rights abuse can be defeated by resorting to violence.
The state had already made them criminals simply because they were born Jewish, thus losing all legitimacy as a government, and making your argument that they would make themselves criminals by resisting a testament to ignorance.
The point being that by taking up arms against the state they would have justified the subsequent genocide. History would be different because the German's could have claimed that they were only defending themselves from an armed insurrection against a popular government.
Please explain exactly how using your rights benefits those people who think that you are crazy?
How did the people that insisted that MLK was crazy benefit from him exercising his rights?
So you are a modern day MLK? Please provide links to your speeches, writings and actions that are benefiting others.
Im debating a retard obviously.
If she spent 23 years in jail, that would put her case happening when....sometime in the 80's at latest? And, I referred you to how the DoJ and state govts spent a lot of time and effort in the 70's and 80's cleaning up police corruption to the low-point of corruption that we have today. AND...part of cleaning it up was requiring writtena and videotaped confessions, AND judges who are no longer willing to sign warrants with nothing but a confession as evidence.
See.....society progressed, even if you didnt.
[]
A single example of a government that consistently protects the rights of the people.
Just one.
.
Ok. I drove to the mall today. I had a right to do that with relative safety, and shopped without fear of being robbed. I even took my girlfriend, and she wandered off to one of those lame womens stores while I strolled Barnes and Noble. I never worried she'd be raped or kidnapped by the local cops, like she may have been in Mexico or Afghanistan by their cops. Then we went out to eat. We overheard a couple who were very rude and complained about their food. That couple didnt have to worry about being beaten by the bar staff. Millions of people did that same thing today, without much worry. Because we established governments long ago to protect that basic pursuit of a happy life.
Oh, btw, if you lived on a distant island with 1,000 other people, with absolutely no government- what would your rights be? Who would ensure the other 1,000 protected your rights? Would the other 1,000 people respect those rights? Would they enjoy the same rights that you made up for yourself????
The state had already made them criminals simply because they were born Jewish, thus losing all legitimacy as a government, and making your argument that they would make themselves criminals by resisting a testament to ignorance.
The point being that by taking up arms against the state they would have justified the subsequent genocide. History would be different because the German's could have claimed that they were only defending themselves from an armed insurrection against a popular government.
Strangely enough, the people of Syria took up arms against the state, how many people are arguing that that action legitimizes the actions of the Syrian government? The simple fact is that nothing a victim of violence ever does justifies what happens to them. The real point here is that not taking up arms against the state got them dead.
Feel free to keep arguing, it makes me look incredibly intelligent.
The point being that by taking up arms against the state they would have justified the subsequent genocide. History would be different because the German's could have claimed that they were only defending themselves from an armed insurrection against a popular government.
Strangely enough, the people of Syria took up arms against the state, how many people are arguing that that action legitimizes the actions of the Syrian government? The simple fact is that nothing a victim of violence ever does justifies what happens to them. The real point here is that not taking up arms against the state got them dead.
Feel free to keep arguing, it makes me look incredibly intelligent.
Please provide the parallels to the Arab Spring and pre-WW2 Germany.
Im debating a retard obviously.
If she spent 23 years in jail, that would put her case happening when....sometime in the 80's at latest? And, I referred you to how the DoJ and state govts spent a lot of time and effort in the 70's and 80's cleaning up police corruption to the low-point of corruption that we have today. AND...part of cleaning it up was requiring writtena and videotaped confessions, AND judges who are no longer willing to sign warrants with nothing but a confession as evidence.
See.....society progressed, even if you didnt.
It progressed? This just happened Thursday, how much could it have progressed since then?
By the way, your math sucks.
2013-23=1990
[]
A single example of a government that consistently protects the rights of the people.
Just one.
.
Ok. I drove to the mall today. I had a right to do that with relative safety, and shopped without fear of being robbed. I even took my girlfriend, and she wandered off to one of those lame womens stores while I strolled Barnes and Noble. I never worried she'd be raped or kidnapped by the local cops, like she may have been in Mexico or Afghanistan by their cops. Then we went out to eat. We overheard a couple who were very rude and complained about their food. That couple didnt have to worry about being beaten by the bar staff. Millions of people did that same thing today, without much worry. Because we established governments long ago to protect that basic pursuit of a happy life.
Oh, btw, if you lived on a distant island with 1,000 other people, with absolutely no government- what would your rights be? Who would ensure the other 1,000 protected your rights? Would the other 1,000 people respect those rights? Would they enjoy the same rights that you made up for yourself????
I didn't see anything in that post that even started to address my challenge.
