CDZ Why are anti gunners so open all of a sudden about banning guns?

[Skull Pilot]

Have you figured out how you are going to identify all the crazy people who shouldn't own guns. It is fairly easy after the fact, not so easy up front. And, since being crazy does not mean they are not smart, I am sure they can figure out a way to get that gun whether you like it or not.

Sure I can.

You can't buy a gun until we've talked to your boss, your teacher, your neighbors and your family.

You see, the funny thing about mass shooters. The two things we always find out about them.

1) Everyone in their life knew they were crazy.
2) They were able to get a gun, anyway.

The fact that you loons exist is enough reason to own guns. I have always wondered why, since the rest of the advanced world is more to your liking, why are you not there.

Because I've put a lot of work into this country, thanks. At least according to my DD214, anyway.

The we will have to do all that every time you want to exercise any right.

And I don't give a shit about any "work" you've done because it's shoddy at best

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Soros is on a deadline to transform America. Had Hillary won like she was supposed to, there would already be 5 Fascist gun grabbers on SCOTUS and the 2A would be a thing of the past. OK so without 5 Fascist gun grabbers on SCOTUS, Soros needs to get through the back door: school shootings

 

[Soupnazi630]

um sorry yourself Joe.....what you said had nothing to do with what i said,did it?....did dean teach you how to dance around questions you dont want to answer?..

I've answered your question pretty effectively. I'm done.

I cannot find anything historically to back up your claim. The first gun control law to be overturned while referencing the 2nd Amendment happened in 1846 concerning a handgun ban in Georgia. The ruling stated:

You are forgetting subsequent rulings like US v. Miller, which clearly stated that the 2nd gives the government the power to regulate guns.

Here's the problem, if you said "Gun" to one of the guys who wrote the constitution, he'd be thinking of THIS

View attachment 185850

fires maybe three rounds per minute in the hands of a highly trained user. Effective firing range of about 50 yards. Certainly not the weapon that you could murder a school full of children with, and back int hose days, a school was a little red school house with maybe 10 kids in it.


Now we have THIS- The AR-15, can fire up to 45 rounds a minute, maximum effective range of 420 meters.

View attachment 185851E

The internet and TV would have been science fiction as well but we all Know the first amendment is not limited to wooden printing presses.

We have allowed some regulations as we have allowed some few restrictions on speech but enough is enough.

There is no justification for more infringement.

 

[emilynghiem]

One more time, why would any of this be a bad thing?

Do you have a better argument than "The Founding Slave Owners Said I can have any gun I want if you read it the right way"?

here JoeB131:
When 'assault weapons' saved Koreatown | Human Events

Explain why it would be fair to pass laws punishing the wrong people because of crimes of others,
by banning law abiding business owners from displaying "assault weapons" lawfully to defend their lives and property (from rioters attacking and burning down businesses during the LA riots when police were ordered to stand down, and not answer any 911 calls for help for 24 hours.)

the gun ban approach sends the wrong message, that it's okay to infringe on the rights of innocent citizens because of the FEAR of other people's criminal violations abusing guns.

that makes as much sense as Shariah Islamists requiring
that women wear Burqas and lose their freedom because of men who might rape them.

Is this the message you want to send?

 

[80zephyr]

um sorry yourself Joe.....what you said had nothing to do with what i said,did it?....did dean teach you how to dance around questions you dont want to answer?..

I've answered your question pretty effectively. I'm done.

I cannot find anything historically to back up your claim. The first gun control law to be overturned while referencing the 2nd Amendment happened in 1846 concerning a handgun ban in Georgia. The ruling stated:

You are forgetting subsequent rulings like US v. Miller, which clearly stated that the 2nd gives the government the power to regulate guns.

Here's the problem, if you said "Gun" to one of the guys who wrote the constitution, he'd be thinking of THIS

View attachment 185850

fires maybe three rounds per minute in the hands of a highly trained user. Effective firing range of about 50 yards. Certainly not the weapon that you could murder a school full of children with, and back int hose days, a school was a little red school house with maybe 10 kids in it.


Now we have THIS- The AR-15, can fire up to 45 rounds a minute, maximum effective range of 420 meters.

View attachment 185851

YOu really can't say, "Well, the founding fathers thought..." It doesn't matter what they thought, weapons like this would have been science fiction to them.

That wasn't your claim. Your claim was, that until recently, our government didn't view the 2nd Amendment earlier in our history that we do today. I have pointed out that they did indeed do so.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

If 33,000 is too many, what would be an acceptable number for you to let us keep our guns?

Mark

I kind of like where the Europeans are at...

Germany has 250 gun homicides a year. 719 gun suicides. And germany is a country where the gun laws are actually kind of moderate. You can own a gun, but it's not considered a right because that would be stupid.

Instead, you get a gun after you have been checked out, trained, qualified, licensed and insured.

Personally, I'd rather go the route of Japan, and you guys just can't have guns because you don't need them. But I'm willing to comprimise and meet you halfway.

Why Japan? Japans suicide rate is higher than ours is, and for practical purposes, have no guns in the country.

It appears that it is not the deaths that bother you, but how they are committed that the problem.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Joe is just a typical garden variety cognitively dissonant Prog.

He thinks Trump is Literally Hitler, but wants the Feds to disarm citizens and for the government to have all the weapons.

Here's the thing.

Armed Germans didn't stop Hitler
Armed Americans aren't going to stop Trump.

The thing was, under Hitler, gun ownership was pretty widespread in Germany. All these guys came back from WWI with their Lugers and their Gewehrs because, hey, the German Army more collapsed than disbanded in WWI. And although the Weimar Government passed some gun laws, they really didn't take a lot of them out of circulation.

But you see, a funny thing happened when the Nazis came for people.

I Let this guy explain it to you.

Historically incorrect.

Few citizens owned, or were entitled to own firearms in Germany in the 1930s.[1] The Weimar Republic had strict gun control laws.[7] 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 tightened 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

Nazi gun control argument - Wikipedia

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

What you fail to take into account is that the musket you show was also the main military issued firearm of the day. The British Redcoat carried essentially the same firearm. Incidentally, Colonists also owned artillery pieces, cavalry equipment (horses & sabres), and naval vessels.

So, I see no reason why modern Americans should not ge allowed to own the same level of military tech as the Government has.

Nope, that would be even crazier than what we are doing now.

You see, here was the thing. Few people owned guns in 1776. When the Redcoats were coming, they were coming to seize guns at the arsenal at Lexington, not going house to house looking for muskets people didn't have.

Wrong. Gun powder was at a premium, and it was GOVERNMENT gunpowder the Redcoats were going to seize at Lexington.

The colonists still had their own weapons.

Mark

 

[2aguy]

Joe is just a typical garden variety cognitively dissonant Prog.

He thinks Trump is Literally Hitler, but wants the Feds to disarm citizens and for the government to have all the weapons.

Here's the thing.

Armed Germans didn't stop Hitler
Armed Americans aren't going to stop Trump.

The thing was, under Hitler, gun ownership was pretty widespread in Germany. All these guys came back from WWI with their Lugers and their Gewehrs because, hey, the German Army more collapsed than disbanded in WWI. And although the Weimar Government passed some gun laws, they really didn't take a lot of them out of circulation.

But you see, a funny thing happened when the Nazis came for people.

I Let this guy explain it to you.

Had gun ownership been widespread among targeted victim groups, the brown shirts could not have intimidated them into compliance, much like the klan was stopped when blacks were able to keep guns. This short circuits the illegal accumulation of political power. When you can send armed goons to be the crap out of people who speak up, you teach other people to stay quiet and to give in. When those armed thugs are sent packing by armed citizens, they can't use force to get their way....

This is what you saw not only with the democrat kkk...but with New York democrats...

http://nypost.com/2012/01/16/the-strange-birth-of-nys-gun-laws/

Problem was the gangs worked for Tammany. The Democratic machine used them asshtarkers (sluggers), enforcing discipline at the polls and intimidating the opposition. Gang leaders like Monk Eastman were even employed as informal “sheriffs,” keeping their turf under Tammany control.

The Tammany Tiger needed to rein in the gangs without completely crippling them. Enter Big Tim with the perfect solution: Ostensibly disarm the gangs — and ordinary citizens, too — while still keeping them on the streets.

In fact, he gave the game away during the debate on the bill, which flew through Albany: “I want to make it so the young thugs in my district will get three years for carrying dangerous weapons instead of getting a sentence in the electric chair a year from now.”

Sullivan knew the gangs would flout the law, but appearances were more important than results. Young toughs took to sewing the pockets of their coats shut, so that cops couldn’t plant firearms on them, and many gangsters stashed their weapons inside their girlfriends’ “bird cages” — wire-mesh fashion contraptions around which women would wind their hair.
----Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved another problem: Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that their victims sometimes shot back at them.

So gang violence didn’t drop under the Sullivan Act — and really took off after the passage of Prohibition in 1920. Spectacular gangland rubouts — like the 1932 machine-gunning of “Mad Dog” Coll in a drugstore phone booth on 23rd Street — became the norm.

 

[2aguy]

What you fail to take into account is that the musket you show was also the main military issued firearm of the day. The British Redcoat carried essentially the same firearm. Incidentally, Colonists also owned artillery pieces, cavalry equipment (horses & sabres), and naval vessels.

So, I see no reason why modern Americans should not ge allowed to own the same level of military tech as the Government has.

Nope, that would be even crazier than what we are doing now.

You see, here was the thing. Few people owned guns in 1776. When the Redcoats were coming, they were coming to seize guns at the arsenal at Lexington, not going house to house looking for muskets people didn't have.

Everyone had guns in 1776.......it was a frontier community and they were all part of militias to prevent indian attacks...

 

[thewanderer]

um sorry yourself Joe.....what you said had nothing to do with what i said,did it?....did dean teach you how to dance around questions you dont want to answer?..

I've answered your question pretty effectively. I'm done.

I cannot find anything historically to back up your claim. The first gun control law to be overturned while referencing the 2nd Amendment happened in 1846 concerning a handgun ban in Georgia. The ruling stated:

You are forgetting subsequent rulings like US v. Miller, which clearly stated that the 2nd gives the government the power to regulate guns.

Here's the problem, if you said "Gun" to one of the guys who wrote the constitution, he'd be thinking of THIS

View attachment 185850

fires maybe three rounds per minute in the hands of a highly trained user. Effective firing range of about 50 yards. Certainly not the weapon that you could murder a school full of children with, and back int hose days, a school was a little red school house with maybe 10 kids in it.


Now we have THIS- The AR-15, can fire up to 45 rounds a minute, maximum effective range of 420 meters.

View attachment 185851

YOu really can't say, "Well, the founding fathers thought..." It doesn't matter what they thought, weapons like this would have been science fiction to them.

They couldn't have conceived of the internet either. Or radio or television. All of that would have been, as you say, science fiction to them.

Does that mean that the 1st amendment should only apply to what people can write with a feather dipped in ink and written on parchment?

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was clear—it was to protect against government tyranny, foreign or domestic. The gun owning population of the United States is the largest standing army in the world. We'll never be invaded for that reason. That means the 2nd amendment is doing exactly what the FF intended it to do, and the citizenry keeping up with military weaponry—at least to the extent that it applies to single person, individual firepower—is exactly what they intended in order to accomplish that purpose.

Also, obviously no one wants kids to die in school shootings, but the number of kids who do amounts to statistical noise. The number of people killed by ALL long guns in the US every year is around 500. For some perspective, I read recently that 450 people a year die accidentally falling out of their beds. Far more kids drown every year, but no one's marching and protesting swimming pools. More kids die texting and driving and there's not nearly the emphasis on that. Knives kill 4 times as many Americans as rifles (of all types). No one's talking about banning knives...not even combat style knives that "only have one purpose."

So, this isn't about saving lives. It's about virtue signaling from the rank and file and stripping the population of all guns from the leadership.

And if the shoe were on the other foot, you better believe that the left would absolutely and in all seriousness be calling the right racist for focusing so much on banning weapons that kill a handful of white suburban kids every year while ignoring the guns that thousands of black teenagers and young adults shoot each other with in inner cities every weekend. Literally every weekend. You could have a march every week for those black kids, but it rarely happens, and curiously very, very few people admit that they want to ban handguns, which kill more (largely black) people by at least 2 x one order of magnitude than all rifles put together.

 

[thewanderer]

If 33,000 is too many, what would be an acceptable number for you to let us keep our guns?

Mark

I kind of like where the Europeans are at...

Germany has 250 gun homicides a year. 719 gun suicides. And germany is a country where the gun laws are actually kind of moderate. You can own a gun, but it's not considered a right because that would be stupid.

Instead, you get a gun after you have been checked out, trained, qualified, licensed and insured.

Personally, I'd rather go the route of Japan, and you guys just can't have guns because you don't need them. But I'm willing to comprimise and meet you halfway.

Well, there's a reason it was called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. I don't care whether you think you need to arm yourself or not. You have no idea whether I need to arm myself. No more than I know what you need.

 

[2aguy]

um sorry yourself Joe.....what you said had nothing to do with what i said,did it?....did dean teach you how to dance around questions you dont want to answer?..

I've answered your question pretty effectively. I'm done.

I cannot find anything historically to back up your claim. The first gun control law to be overturned while referencing the 2nd Amendment happened in 1846 concerning a handgun ban in Georgia. The ruling stated:

You are forgetting subsequent rulings like US v. Miller, which clearly stated that the 2nd gives the government the power to regulate guns.

Here's the problem, if you said "Gun" to one of the guys who wrote the constitution, he'd be thinking of THIS

View attachment 185850

fires maybe three rounds per minute in the hands of a highly trained user. Effective firing range of about 50 yards. Certainly not the weapon that you could murder a school full of children with, and back int hose days, a school was a little red school house with maybe 10 kids in it.


Now we have THIS- The AR-15, can fire up to 45 rounds a minute, maximum effective range of 420 meters.

View attachment 185851

YOu really can't say, "Well, the founding fathers thought..." It doesn't matter what they thought, weapons like this would have been science fiction to them.

You obviously didn't read Heller, just like the other anti gunners...you see the out of context quote from Scalia, and think it means you can regulate guns out of existence as long as you don't erase the 2nd Amendment on the original document.....

From Heller.....which arms are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment, as Scalia cites Miller...

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

The AR-15 and semi automatic rifles and pistols are the most "common" guns in use in this country......

And specifically from Scalia....in Heller...

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

---

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

The limits you people keep trying to say Scalia imposed are not on weapons......as you see from those to passages....but on Felons, the mentally Il, and some very specific locations...


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

And since he already stated...

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Then when he writes.....

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

He does not mean rifles and pistols but the other weapons, like grenades, or rocket launchers, or crew served weapons...

 

[2aguy]

um sorry yourself Joe.....what you said had nothing to do with what i said,did it?....did dean teach you how to dance around questions you dont want to answer?..

I've answered your question pretty effectively. I'm done.

I cannot find anything historically to back up your claim. The first gun control law to be overturned while referencing the 2nd Amendment happened in 1846 concerning a handgun ban in Georgia. The ruling stated:

You are forgetting subsequent rulings like US v. Miller, which clearly stated that the 2nd gives the government the power to regulate guns.

Here's the problem, if you said "Gun" to one of the guys who wrote the constitution, he'd be thinking of THIS

View attachment 185850

fires maybe three rounds per minute in the hands of a highly trained user. Effective firing range of about 50 yards. Certainly not the weapon that you could murder a school full of children with, and back int hose days, a school was a little red school house with maybe 10 kids in it.


Now we have THIS- The AR-15, can fire up to 45 rounds a minute, maximum effective range of 420 meters.

View attachment 185851

YOu really can't say, "Well, the founding fathers thought..." It doesn't matter what they thought, weapons like this would have been science fiction to them.

They couldn't have conceived of the internet either. Or radio or television. All of that would have been, as you say, science fiction to them.

Does that mean that the 1st amendment should only apply to what people can write with a feather dipped in ink and written on parchment?

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was clear—it was to protect against government tyranny, foreign or domestic. The gun owning population of the United States is the largest standing army in the world. We'll never be invaded for that reason. That means the 2nd amendment is doing exactly what the FF intended it to do, and the citizenry keeping up with military weaponry—at least to the extent that it applies to single person, individual firepower—is exactly what they intended in order to accomplish that purpose.

Also, obviously no one wants kids to die in school shootings, but the number of kids who do amounts to statistical noise. The number of people killed by ALL long guns in the US every year is around 500. For some perspective, I read recently that 450 people a year die accidentally falling out of their beds. Far more kids drown every year, but no one's marching and protesting swimming pools. More kids die texting and driving and there's not nearly the emphasis on that. Knives kill 4 times as many Americans as rifles (of all types). No one's talking about banning knives...not even combat style knives that "only have one purpose."

So, this isn't about saving lives. It's about virtue signaling from the rank and file and stripping the population of all guns from the leadership.

And if the shoe were on the other foot, you better believe that the left would absolutely and in all seriousness be calling the right racist for focusing so much on banning weapons that kill a handful of white suburban kids every year while ignoring the guns that thousands of black teenagers and young adults shoot each other with in inner cities every weekend. Literally every weekend. You could have a march every week for those black kids, but it rarely happens, and curiously very, very few people admit that they want to ban handguns, which kill more (largely black) people by at least 2 x one order of magnitude than all rifles put together.

The number of people killed by ALL long guns in the US every year is around 500.


actually, a lot less....at least by murder....

Expanded Homicide Data Table 4

Rifles....374

knives....1,604

blunt objects....472

bare hands....656

 

[2aguy]

um sorry yourself Joe.....what you said had nothing to do with what i said,did it?....did dean teach you how to dance around questions you dont want to answer?..

I've answered your question pretty effectively. I'm done.

I cannot find anything historically to back up your claim. The first gun control law to be overturned while referencing the 2nd Amendment happened in 1846 concerning a handgun ban in Georgia. The ruling stated:

You are forgetting subsequent rulings like US v. Miller, which clearly stated that the 2nd gives the government the power to regulate guns.

Here's the problem, if you said "Gun" to one of the guys who wrote the constitution, he'd be thinking of THIS

View attachment 185850

fires maybe three rounds per minute in the hands of a highly trained user. Effective firing range of about 50 yards. Certainly not the weapon that you could murder a school full of children with, and back int hose days, a school was a little red school house with maybe 10 kids in it.


Now we have THIS- The AR-15, can fire up to 45 rounds a minute, maximum effective range of 420 meters.

View attachment 185851

YOu really can't say, "Well, the founding fathers thought..." It doesn't matter what they thought, weapons like this would have been science fiction to them.

They couldn't have conceived of the internet either. Or radio or television. All of that would have been, as you say, science fiction to them.

Does that mean that the 1st amendment should only apply to what people can write with a feather dipped in ink and written on parchment?

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was clear—it was to protect against government tyranny, foreign or domestic. The gun owning population of the United States is the largest standing army in the world. We'll never be invaded for that reason. That means the 2nd amendment is doing exactly what the FF intended it to do, and the citizenry keeping up with military weaponry—at least to the extent that it applies to single person, individual firepower—is exactly what they intended in order to accomplish that purpose.

Also, obviously no one wants kids to die in school shootings, but the number of kids who do amounts to statistical noise. The number of people killed by ALL long guns in the US every year is around 500. For some perspective, I read recently that 450 people a year die accidentally falling out of their beds. Far more kids drown every year, but no one's marching and protesting swimming pools. More kids die texting and driving and there's not nearly the emphasis on that. Knives kill 4 times as many Americans as rifles (of all types). No one's talking about banning knives...not even combat style knives that "only have one purpose."

So, this isn't about saving lives. It's about virtue signaling from the rank and file and stripping the population of all guns from the leadership.

And if the shoe were on the other foot, you better believe that the left would absolutely and in all seriousness be calling the right racist for focusing so much on banning weapons that kill a handful of white suburban kids every year while ignoring the guns that thousands of black teenagers and young adults shoot each other with in inner cities every weekend. Literally every weekend. You could have a march every week for those black kids, but it rarely happens, and curiously very, very few people admit that they want to ban handguns, which kill more (largely black) people by at least 2 x one order of magnitude than all rifles put together.

They couldn't have conceived of the internet either. Or radio or television. All of that would have been, as you say, science fiction to them.


A caller on Rush on Thursday pointed this out....modifications and advancements in guns had been happening while these men lived....from the blunderbuss, to the matchlock, to the flintlock, to the rifled barrel.......the only thing they could never have concieved of was modern telecommunications...the internet, radio.....

The anti gunners have no idea what they are talking about...

 

[Leo123]

One more time, why would any of this be a bad thing?

It's a bad thing because the bad guys will out-gun YOU. You moron.

 

[JoeB131]

It would also be Constitutional, unlike our current gun laws.

That arsenal was owned by the citizens of Lexington and did contain private arms in addition to the munitions of the Militia. They were not property of the Town, the Colony, or the Crown.

If it wasn't a government facility, why weren't those guns kept in people's homes, which is what you nutters are claiming.

So if we use your "logic" in regards to the second amendment and apply it to the first then the only type of written speech that is protected by the first amendment is that which was written with quill and ink on parchment.

Okay, you know they had printing presses in 1776. I'm sure they didn't cover that in your Home school.

As for other kinds of speech, they ARE regulated. That's why I can't set up my rogue Radio Station that plays Pink Floyd Music 24/7. First, I'd have to get permission, from the government, to use a certain frequency. Then I'd have to pay the people who have the legal copyright to Pink Floyd's music. See, buddy, they change the regulation to reflect the technology. And a good thing, too, or you'd be changing music formats on your car every other mile depending whose transmitter you were near.

Joe Blowhard thinks if we ban all guns no one will ever get murdered again

I'd be good with Japan and their 4 gun murders a year, yeah.

 

[JoeB131]

It's a bad thing because the bad guys will out-gun YOU. You moron.

Okay, one more time.

Other countries have banned guns and they really don't have a problem with being "outgunned" by the bad guys.

33,000 gun deaths a year, and very few of them are 'bad guys", I'd say the bad guys are already winning.

 

[JoeB131]

The we will have to do all that every time you want to exercise any right.

And I don't give a shit about any "work" you've done because it's shoddy at best

Well, at least I've done the work, unlike you libertarian types who talk all day about "Freedom" and do nothing to preserve it.

Libertarians.... all good with civilization, don't like paying for it.

Everyone had guns in 1776.......it was a frontier community and they were all part of militias to prevent indian attacks...

Actually, very few Americans by 1776 encountered any Indians. Most of the white people lived east of the Appalachians, and most of the Native Americans who survived genocide lived west of them.

One of the major causes of the Revolution was the British didn't want the Colonials antagonizing the First Nations by going any further west.

 

[JoeB131]

Had gun ownership been widespread among targeted victim groups, the brown shirts could not have intimidated them into compliance, much like the klan was stopped when blacks were able to keep guns.

Wow, this is dumb.

First, gun ownership was very prevelant amongst the German people.

Second, most of the "targeted victim groups" were countries that Germany defeated militarily. Poland got the worst of it Of course, most of these countries were happy to hand over their Jews because, hey, nobody in Europe really liked the Jews. It's the whole rational behind Zionism, which is making sure no one in the Middle East likes them, either.

Third- they had the kind of uprising you fantasize about in the Warsaw Ghetto.. and they killed a whole whopping 17 Germans before 56,000 of them were killed or sent off to the camps.

Fourth, the only thing that stopped the Klan was government intervention.


The irony is, when blacks arm themselves, white people suddenly LOVE, LOVE, LOVE them some gun control.