Welcome to Gaia! ::

Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Wendigo
You got any particular point on which you can contradict me with a greater authority than myself, feel free.

Never said I could contradict you. Merely asked for the evidence of your argument.

Wendigo
This Stephen Halbrook, while he is fairly clearly on Benson's side of the argument (regarding gun control, that is), he is also something called a "lawyer." And he owns his own website, he's not all low-rent on it.

So for example, we have, regarding the 1928 law:

Quote:
The new law was passed on April 12, but did not take effect until October 1,
1928. On the effective date, the 1919 law requiring immediate surrender of all firearms
and ammunition would be repealed. That would allow over six months for
compliance with the new law while leaving the more draconian but widely ignored law
on the books for the same period.


Regarding "sporting arms," a critical element of the argument:

Quote:
To “facilitate the shooting sport,” the law did not require a license to acquire
or use a firearm at a range with a police permit. Further, “special provisions were
adopted for hunters”:

When hunting, conducting game protection or practicing shooting,
or on their way to or from those activities, owners of a hunting
permit of a German State may carry hunting weapons and a
handgun without needing a special weapons permit. Whoever is in
possession of a hunting permit for a whole year of a German State
may acquire hunting weapons and hand firearms anywhere in the
Reich to the extent provided by the hunting permit and may acquire
ammunition without an acquisition permit.

Noting the effective date of October 1, 1928, Kuenzer added: “In the
meantime the Reich government with the consent of the Reichsrat will issue the
provisions necessary for the implementation of the law and in particular will decide
which firearms should not be subject to the law at all.


How does that strike you as information? Note the lack of conspicuous agitprop.


I supposed that will suffice. But a statistical number still would've been preferable for myself. I believe you said guns would've been easier to obtain in an earlier post and I was really looking for a statistic that would support that.
Though I prefer a little agitprop with sources every now and then. Like a couple extra years aged onto a fine wine.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
The statistic is not called "read a ******** book for once in your life," but thank you for not providing the information so now I have no reason to believe your opinion on Nazi Gun Laws.

You're demanding yearly, reliable statistics, from a fascist regime, from thirty years before the US implemented the same.


And? It's not my problem. I didn't make the claim.

I can just as well say that pyramids were never built because where's the tax return documents of the Pharaohs.


Except that's a flaw. Obviously the pyramids have been built, because they're still standing in Egypt. The issue is how long ago were they built. But then there's scientific methods to know that.

"Scientific methods" like ******** looking at the goddamn pyramids. Just like you can look at the German Weapons Act of 1938.
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
The statistic is not called "read a ******** book for once in your life," but thank you for not providing the information so now I have no reason to believe your opinion on Nazi Gun Laws.

You're demanding yearly, reliable statistics, from a fascist regime, from thirty years before the US implemented the same.


And? It's not my problem. I didn't make the claim.

I can just as well say that pyramids were never built because where's the tax return documents of the Pharaohs.


Except that's a flaw. Obviously the pyramids have been built, because they're still standing in Egypt. The issue is how long ago were they built. But then there's scientific methods to know that.

"Scientific methods" like ******** looking at the goddamn pyramids. Just like you can look at the German Weapons Act of 1938.


There is a difference in Architecture and Sociology or Government Law.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant


And? It's not my problem. I didn't make the claim.

I can just as well say that pyramids were never built because where's the tax return documents of the Pharaohs.


Except that's a flaw. Obviously the pyramids have been built, because they're still standing in Egypt. The issue is how long ago were they built. But then there's scientific methods to know that.

"Scientific methods" like ******** looking at the goddamn pyramids. Just like you can look at the German Weapons Act of 1938.


There is a difference in Architecture and Sociology or Government Law.

They are alike in that neither has a thing to do with my argument. A document is as real as the pyramids.
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant


And? It's not my problem. I didn't make the claim.

I can just as well say that pyramids were never built because where's the tax return documents of the Pharaohs.


Except that's a flaw. Obviously the pyramids have been built, because they're still standing in Egypt. The issue is how long ago were they built. But then there's scientific methods to know that.

"Scientific methods" like ******** looking at the goddamn pyramids. Just like you can look at the German Weapons Act of 1938.


There is a difference in Architecture and Sociology or Government Law.

They are alike in that neither has a thing to do with my argument. A document is as real as the pyramids.


A document, yes. But the effects of the document, no.
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Christien Chalfant

I supposed that will suffice. But a statistical number still would've been preferable for myself. I believe you said guns would've been easier to obtain in an earlier post and I was really looking for a statistic that would support that.
Though I prefer a little agitprop with sources every now and then. Like a couple extra years aged onto a fine wine.
What would statistics actually add to the terms of the law? If the law says that you have to be 21 to buy cigarettes and then the law is changed so that you only have to be 18 to buy cigarettes, then it simply becomes easier to acquire cigarettes, because the standard you have to meet is lower. Whether more purchases are actually made would be irrelevant. Maybe people just don't actually want the product all that much, or it's priced higher than they'd like.

It bears mentioning, the guys talking about the disarming of the Jews in Germany are talking about a few thousand guns spread among a few million people, which is something of a drop in the bucket, in any case.
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Wendigo
Christien Chalfant

I supposed that will suffice. But a statistical number still would've been preferable for myself. I believe you said guns would've been easier to obtain in an earlier post and I was really looking for a statistic that would support that.
Though I prefer a little agitprop with sources every now and then. Like a couple extra years aged onto a fine wine.
What would statistics actually add to the terms of the law? If the law says that you have to be 21 to buy cigarettes and then the law is changed so that you only have to be 18 to buy cigarettes, then it simply becomes easier to acquire cigarettes, because the standard you have to meet is lower. Whether more purchases are actually made would be irrelevant. Maybe people just don't actually want the product all that much, or it's priced higher than they'd like.

It bears mentioning, the guys talking about the disarming of the Jews in Germany are talking about a few thousand guns spread among a few million people, which is something of a drop in the bucket, in any case.


Because laws are broken. Laws say don't murder people, it happens anyways.
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Christien Chalfant
Because laws are broken. Laws say don't murder people, it happens anyways.
Wouldn't appear to be a relevant concept; most people do abide by the law when and where they can, to avoid being punished for being caught breaking it. That's the case in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or Soviet Russia as well as anywhere else. Moreso, even, since the punishment tends to come down harsher and more immediately, sometimes more arbitrarily.

Of course, in the case of the Weimar gun ban, the main form of disobedience wouldn't seem to be selling guns to people too young to buy them, but rather failing to surrender guns when the law said to do so. Or so I've read here and there.
GunsmithKitten
deadroosters
GunsmithKitten
A white supremacist group doesn't like Obama. STOP THE MUTHA ******** PRESSES!

stare

You're not gonna get along with every anti-establishment group, but if you won't be friends with the enemy of our enemy, you're gonna find yourself alone when the enemies decide they're done diddling us around with this "free country" bullshit.


And when that "enemy of our enemy" then turns on me? Besides, I doubt they want me on their side anyway, you know, being a "cumdumpster" and all that.

Naturally, when your enemy is destroyed, there will be a parting of ways. Be ready, that's all.

/b/? They are no warrior clan. Best case scenario, they provide electronic services.
Reluctant Samurai
I just don't understand why people think background checks and similar measures are "OMG DISARMING THE PEOPLE" and will inevitably lead to "OBAMA HITLER NEW WORLD ORDER TYRANNICAL POLICE STATE".


Because they will. It is a tautology. You just don't know it.
Omnileech's avatar

Omnipresent Warlord

Michael Noire
Reluctant Samurai
I just don't understand why people think background checks and similar measures are "OMG DISARMING THE PEOPLE" and will inevitably lead to "OBAMA HITLER NEW WORLD ORDER TYRANNICAL POLICE STATE".


Because they will. It is a tautology. You just don't know it.


As usual for you, you say a lot but end up saying very little. Nothing intelligent anyways. You want to hoist up Isreal? Here ya go.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/28/israeli-gun-laws-are-much-stricter-than-some-u-s-gun-advocates-suggest/

But wait, Isreal's gun laws will lead to a new fascist hitler world order with a tyrannical police state.
Reluctant Samurai's avatar

Dangerous Genius

Michael Noire
Reluctant Samurai
I just don't understand why people think background checks and similar measures are "OMG DISARMING THE PEOPLE" and will inevitably lead to "OBAMA HITLER NEW WORLD ORDER TYRANNICAL POLICE STATE".


Because they will. It is a tautology. You just don't know it.


No. The slippery slope fallacy doesn't work against gay marriage and it doesn't work against this.

Even with people being required to have driver's licenses, no one has had their car seized by the government for getting too many tickets.

For the record, I'm very pro-gun. I love my guns. And no, no one can have them. But that doesn't mean that I can't think that hey, maybe background checks make sense.
Omnileech
Michael Noire
Reluctant Samurai
I just don't understand why people think background checks and similar measures are "OMG DISARMING THE PEOPLE" and will inevitably lead to "OBAMA HITLER NEW WORLD ORDER TYRANNICAL POLICE STATE".


Because they will. It is a tautology. You just don't know it.


As usual for you, you say a lot but end up saying very little. Nothing intelligent anyways. You want to hoist up Isreal? Here ya go.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/28/israeli-gun-laws-are-much-stricter-than-some-u-s-gun-advocates-suggest/

But wait, Isreal's gun laws will lead to a new fascist hitler world order with a tyrannical police state.

Nothing you're willing to understand, perhaps.


******** Israel, nothing they do is good, honorable, or worthy. ******** land thieves.
Reluctant Samurai
Michael Noire
Reluctant Samurai
I just don't understand why people think background checks and similar measures are "OMG DISARMING THE PEOPLE" and will inevitably lead to "OBAMA HITLER NEW WORLD ORDER TYRANNICAL POLICE STATE".


Because they will. It is a tautology. You just don't know it.


No. The slippery slope fallacy doesn't work against gay marriage and it doesn't work against this.

Even with people being required to have driver's licenses, no one has had their car seized by the government for getting too many tickets.

For the record, I'm very pro-gun. I love my guns. And no, no one can have them. But that doesn't mean that I can't think that hey, maybe background checks make sense.

Some slopes are actually slippery. For instance, the national security slope.
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Some slopes are actually slippery, some suffer a logical disconnect somewhere along the line. Usually between the small first step and the incrementally greater second step.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games