[ManifestDestiny]

Gun control "contributes to the probability of its government engaging" in genocide, including the three worst instances in the 20th century:

In 1911, Turkey imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed.
In 1929, the Soviet Union imposed gun control and over the next 24 years about 20 million defenseless dissidents were killed.
In 1938, Germany imposed gun control and then over the next seven years 13 million defenseless Jews and other victims were exterminated.
"The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or any other weapon. Second, they exempted members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and many Nazi party officials from the law's strictures." The German Firearms Act of 1937 stated "No civilian is to have a firearm without a permit and permits shall not be issued to persons suspected of acting against the state. For Jews, this permission will not be granted. Those people who do not require permission to carry weapons include the whole of the SS, and the SA - including the Deaths Head group, and the officers of the Hitler youth."

Adolph Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."

Josef Stalin, former dictator of the USSR and murderer of over 20 million people, infamously supported Gun control in the fear that his evil regime might be torn down and so only soldiers could have gunpowder weapons

[Akhenaten]

Sure, but what does that have to do with a health care debate? Are you implying that, "Today health care (mixed with insurance choices), tomorrow: genocide!"?

[DerbyX]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

DerbyX DerbyX:

I find it hypocritical that righties think they have a right to own a gun yet don't believe people have a right to ingest what they want or sell their bodies if they want.

A gun is a revokable privilege like a driving license.

While I understand the parallel, I believe it does not exactly follow. I regard the right to bear arms as intrinsically bound to the right to life, which implies the right to self-defense. I have never really settled on a position with regards to certain drugs (where do you draw the line and why?), but prostitution, to me, is an immoral behavior which I shall not condone by legalization. It is somewhat tenuous position, but I don't really see those two things as being protected by a basic right in the same way as I see gun ownership.

Your right to life fuels an industry that has no interest in restricting its product and therefore arms criminals to the teeth. Then the industry turns around and points that very thing out so it can sell to you. The gun industry therefore sell measures and counter measures to both sides (legal and criminal) and laughs all the way.

Drugs are a personal choice and just as much a right or privilege. Types and potencies can be negotiated but fundamentally it amounts to the same thing.

Prositution falls into "what I do with my personal life and body" is my own business (and legal in lots of states anyways). In fact if it weren't for religious fervor and that fact the Brits were outlawing it or taxing it back in the late 1700s we probably see Americans defending it as well. Morals are entirely subjective.

To put it bluntly, if you think the government is perfectly OK with telling citizens what they can and cannot do with their own bodies that you can't possible expect that it has no right to tell people what things they are allowed to posses and carry.

[Pseudonym]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

you really think your small arms protect you against the state, with its vast military arsenal of tanks, helicopters, armoured vehicles and resources? Puh-lease! Ask the Branch Davidians down in Waco how long that worked out for them. It's an illusion.

If I may challenge you on that, the State does not have the capacity to completely oppress its citizenry if they are armed and aware. There are not enough tanks to watch every neighborhood in case of an actual armed rebellion. While I feel I must be clear that no one would reasonably predict such a situation in America, or advocate for such (although some may fantasize ), it is abundantly true that any country wishing to crush dissent in such a manner has taken guns out of the hands of its normal citizens. An authoritarian regime just can't deal with that sort of problem, no matter how powerful its military.

And, of course, it bears repeating that the possession of firearms is not purely aimed at defeating an authoritarian takeover of government. Self-defense, deterrence, and all the usual reasons listed off by the gun rights lobby still apply.

[BeaverFever]

immoral to some, but not others. Since when is the state supposed to enforce moral behaviour if the act is victimless? Maybe not going to church is "immoral behaviour" or maybe having sex for purposes other than procreation. Or maybe consuming alcohol. If your state wants to get into the "immoral behaviour business" you're going down the same road as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the like. It should not be illegal because it does not infringe on anybody else.

[Pseudonym]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Sure, but what does that have to do with a health care debate? Are you implying that, "Today health care (mixed with insurance choices), tomorrow: genocide!"?

I don't think we are specifically arguing healthcare in this case. We seem to have gotten further afield than that. However, we cannot discount that those who bring their guns to these events may see a connection between those concepts. We simply don't know what they are thinking.

[Pseudonym]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

immoral to some, but not others. Since when is the state supposed to enforce moral behaviour if the act is victimless? Maybe not going to church is "immoral behaviour" or maybe having sex for purposes other than procreation. Or maybe consuming alcohol. If your state wants to get into the "immoral behaviour business" you're going down the same road as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the like. It should not be illegal because it does not infringe on anybody else.

That follows the same line as "government should make no laws imposing morality on others". I don't buy it. Governments make moral decisions all the time. A libertarian utopia may follow that scheme, but in that case you would have to drop practically all public services that do not directly pertain to the protection of individuals and their rights to private property. I need something more solid than that.

[Mustang1]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Brilliant...why not take you anti-Canadian drivel and go back to ignorance. Oh...and it's hard to name influential Canadians from the 1700s, when we weren't even a country! Want some influential fellow British from the same period?

Today you were not a country yet, tommorow when it come to burning down the white house, Canadians did it!

Brilliant...i never said Canadian burnt down the White House, but they did assist in sending you republicans (i guess you didn't care to test our right of sovereignty) packing and by the way, what do nationality to label men like Jefferson, Adams, Paine and Washington in 1774?

Go peddle your piss-poor history somewhere else.

[Akhenaten]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Sure, but what does that have to do with a health care debate? Are you implying that, "Today health care (mixed with insurance choices), tomorrow: genocide!"?

I don't think we are specifically arguing healthcare in this case. We seem to have gotten further afield than that. However, we cannot discount that those who bring their guns to these events may see a connection between those concepts. We simply don't know what they are thinking.

Thank you. I haven't the heart to argue with such fearless honesty.

[Mustang1]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Gun control "contributes to the probability of its government engaging" in genocide, including the three worst instances in the 20th century:

In 1911, Turkey imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed.
In 1929, the Soviet Union imposed gun control and over the next 24 years about 20 million defenseless dissidents were killed.
In 1938, Germany imposed gun control and then over the next seven years 13 million defenseless Jews and other victims were exterminated.
"The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or any other weapon. Second, they exempted members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and many Nazi party officials from the law's strictures." The German Firearms Act of 1937 stated "No civilian is to have a firearm without a permit and permits shall not be issued to persons suspected of acting against the state. For Jews, this permission will not be granted. Those people who do not require permission to carry weapons include the whole of the SS, and the SA - including the Deaths Head group, and the officers of the Hitler youth."

Adolph Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."

Josef Stalin, former dictator of the USSR and murderer of over 20 million people, infamously supported Gun control in the fear that his evil regime might be torn down and so only soldiers could have gunpowder weapons

Yeah, and where were your gun-toting, freedom-lovers then? Doing squat. Nations like Canada certainly answered the call in 1939. America? Not so much.

Oh...and the first 5 year plan was introduced in 1928, supposedly a year before the Soviets took away gun rights. How'd that work?

And the Nuremberg Laws were promulgated in 1935, the police state well in place, supposedly 3 years before the Nazis took away gun rights. How'd that work?

You can't even get your historical analysis correct. Get a clue.

[Proculation]

The US were very isolationist back then. Now that they are not, you say they are too interventionist. You have to make yourself an idea.

[BeaverFever]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

If I may challenge you on that, the State does not have the capacity to completely oppress its citizenry if they are armed and aware. There are not enough tanks to watch every neighborhood in case of an actual armed rebellion.

So how does that spell your chances for success in Iraq? Isn't that the exact same thing, where the state (and the US) is trying to surpress armed groups?

$1:

it is abundantly true that any country wishing to crush dissent in such a manner has taken guns out of the hands of its normal citizens. An authoritarian regime just can't deal with that sort of problem, no matter how powerful its military.

That is mostly true but there are exceptions. Contary to popular myth, After WWI, Germany, then known as the Weimar Republic had a complete ban on guns, which it then relaxed in 1928. This allowed political parties that not only included the Nazis but others as well from across the spectrum to legally operate armed 'thug' gangs. When the Nazis were elected, they further loosened gun laws. I know the popular conception is that Hitler banned guns but he did not. There were still gun restrictions under the Nazis that were doubtlessly more strict than in many US states, but they were considerably looser than previously. The Nazi's Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, included, for example, the exemption from regulation of all weapons and ammunition except handguns, (for which a special permit was required,)the extension of the range of persons exempt from the permit requirement(except Jews,) and the lowering of the age for acquisition of firearms from 20 to 18.

Besides, straw men and propganda such as "death panels" and "secret muslim" accusations are much more effective at manipulating the population than coercive force.

[BeaverFever]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

That follows the same line as "government should make no laws imposing morality on others". I don't buy it. Governments make moral decisions all the time. A libertarian utopia may follow that scheme, but in that case you would have to drop practically all public services that do not directly pertain to the protection of individuals and their rights to private property. I need something more solid than that.

No, first of all providing a public service and restricting a person from voluntarily engaging in their own private activities that do not infringe on others are two completely different things. From the citizens perspective, participation in the former is voluntary while the later is mandatory.

Second, public services all have something other than "morality" behind them, for example, providing utilities encourages business and industry development and raises the economic and industrial standards of the nation.

[Mustang1]

Proculation Proculation:

The US were very isolationist back then. Now that they are not, you say they are too interventionist. You have to make yourself an idea.

That's not the point, is it? He made the bad parallel and i followed. My point still stands.

[Praxius]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

If I may challenge you on that, the State does not have the capacity to completely oppress its citizenry if they are armed and aware. There are not enough tanks to watch every neighborhood in case of an actual armed rebellion.

So how does that spell your chances for success in Iraq? Isn't that the exact same thing, where the state (and the US) is trying to surpress armed groups?

Indeed... they're insurgents, not patriots apparently, and everybody walking around with a weapon were usually checked and searched by US troops.... AKA: Forigners occupying their lands and oppressing their "Rights"

Rights that apparently only apply to people in the US, while everybody else has to follow the "Do as we say, not as we do" routine.

The US troops in Iraq afterall were trying to "Liberate" Iraqis and give them "freedom"..... yet not freedom like their own, as anybody who resisted them and fought for their own country were "terrorists" being supported by evil Iran.

Just like how Americans were supported by the evil French against the British.