Does P&W thinks gun controls work?

[Mike Haggar]

You can read the previous threads for my views on militias and their ineffectualness.

 

I can't remember the last time that someone got shot in Cymru (apart from the case of the hairdresser in Casnewydd) and killed, let alone more than one person in an incident. Our gun laws might be far from perfect but they do work. I am not saying ban all firearms, in fact I was holding a Sharps rifle on Christmas eve and occasionally use an competition air gun legally, but that we should treat firearms in the same way that we treat Cars. To drive you need a license(which requires background checks into health - physical and mental), valid insurance and road tax paid once you have proved that your vehicle is roadworthy. My understanding of US law suggests that this isn't the case in the US.

That depends on what the militia is for. It can be a useful way to channel the energy of your more extreme citizens into a positive outcome. Myself, I'm happy to serve my role in society and provide benefit to others. Others want to be Chuck Norris and aren't satisfied with anything else. So give them a way to be Chuck Norris without hurting anyone else. Give them maps and tell them to make plans, nod when they give it back, and find some problem with it that they can just barely address so they go back on the mental treadmill.

 

Simple solution: Allow people to bear arm, except mental illness, irrational and people with unstable conditions.

The complexity lies in just how you define mental illness and irrationality. There was a time when psychiatrists locked people away for not going to church, or even for just not following their orders. While it isn't true now, what other massive gaffes are we still committing that later generations will cringe at? Plus, everyone is unstable to one extent or another, depending on the situation. An example is that old cliche of the happily married spouse shooting their cheating partner. They were stable until their partner cheated. Or should psychiatrists lock up everyone who fears their partners are cheating on them in case they will go on a shooting spree? Half the JudeoChristian world would be gone. It's nearly impossible to tell what someone will do in a situation until they do it. There are indicators, true, but it's never 100% and a lot of psychology still has big uncertainties.

 

That, and seeking mental help should never be punished. I'd actually encourage everyone to do it at least once in their lifetime because everyone needs it.

 

And don't demand that you be allowed to have a firearm. Unless you have a reason to own a firearm, why should you?

Firearms can be used for sport and are often essential in rural areas. I'd never keep an Alaskan, for example, from owning a gun. Some countries have a strong gun culture, and you shouldn't take it away from them any more than you should take religious texts from religious cultures. In both cases, it fills a central part of the citizens' identity without harming anyone, but both can be harmful if used for the wrong ends.

 

also don't allow people on the terroist wacht  list to get guns

The last thing I trust is the terrorist watchlist. It's so full of errors and false flags that it can be close to useless. The criminal justice system is in place for a reason, and that is to take liberty away from those who have abused it. Most countries have lots of checks on it, with everything done to make it difficult to be convicted. While it's hardly perfect, it's still the best way to indicate that someone should no longer have the freedom to get in a licensed profession, operate in general society, or own a gun.

 

Your feelings on that may differ depending on the country you reside in. If you have a problem with the established justice system, then work with politicians to change that system.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I cannot find the Hitler Quote online. Only thing I found was an adjustment to the gun ownership limitations from the Weimar Republic's gun control laws already in effect that Hitler expanded on which he added- ending ownership of firearms to Jews and Roma.

[Mutsuo Toi]

I think I have a solution to end all of these bullshit. Make everyone have their own justice! Their life, their problem. The government can't do anything to save their asses over these bullshit instead making the majority want to become a volunteer slave for them.

[durmij]

 

 

 

"TO CONQUER A NATION, FIRST DISARM IT'S CITIZEN."

                                                                                                                                                       -Adolf Hitler-

 

 

And again, can you link me to a legit page, where you got this quote from?

Hitler didn't talk very much english afaik. Would be "Um eine Nation zu erobern, entwaffne seine Bürger vorher." Now you can google for this quote in german.. nope, no results.

Appearently that quote first appeared on Twitter in 2012 as support for US gun ownership. http://www.geschichtsforum.de/f66/hitlerzitat-51241/

Adolf Hitler "conquered" Germany in a democratic election. He conquered other nations with tanks and bombers, he hadn't cared much which pistols Ivan, Marek and Jacque had in their hands -.-'

 

So, Hitler took 1938 the weapons from his citizens and killed 13 million of them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany#Gun_regulation_of_the_Third_Reich

 

The first gun laws were enacted in ~1919. The allies demanded that the German Government gets completely disarmed. Now the Government had no weapons, but the citizens had...   just think a second now of the USA in that condition      Of course they had to enact a very harsh gun law, or anarchy would have been the rule.

If you now have read the wikipedia article, you should see that the NSDAP even loosened this law, making it for many people even easier to get guns.

 

And what's the 13m? Looks like the total killscore against russian soldiers only.

Soldiers without weapons are either Frenchs or PoW's. They don't get killed normally. Let's not talk about WW2 here, russians had the GULAGs.The treatment was mutual.

Civilists with weapons are partisans. They can be KoS, since they're not protected by/acting against international treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907

 

 

I think I have a solution to end all of these bullshit. Make everyone have their own justice! Their life, their problem. The government can't do anything to save their asses over these bullshit instead making the majority want to become a volunteer slave for them.

 

 

 

When the Hitler apologist is talking more sense then you, you know you !@#$ed up.

[Stujenske]

 

"TO CONQUER A NATION, FIRST DISARM IT'S CITIZEN."

                                                                                                                                                       -Adolf Hitler-

Hitler actually armed ethnic Germans, and saying that he killed 13 of his OWN people is inaccurate.

 

Mao and Stalin ultimately developed their countries to be better than they were if they were never leader.

Before the Soviets took power:

 

"Before 1861 most peasants had been serfs, with no legal status or rights as free men. Alexander II’s emancipation edict gave them legal freedom – but the land redistribution that followed often thousands of peasants worse off than before. The best tracts of farmland were usually allocated to land-owning nobles, who kept it for themselves or leased it for high rents. The former serfs were left with whatever remained – but they wereobliged to make 49 annual redemption payments to the government – in effect, a 49-year state mortgage. These redemption payments were often higher than the rent or land taxes they paid before emancipation. Some common land was also controlled and allocated by the obshchina or mir (or village commune). The mir was also responsible for other administrative duties, such as the collection of taxes and the supply of conscript quotas to the Imperial Army.

The small size of these peasant communes (most villages contained between 200-500 people), as well as their scattered distribution, affected the worldview of Russian peasants. There was little or no formal education so the majority of peasants were illiterate; few peasants travelled and returned, so not much was known about the world beyond their village. Peasant communities were insular and defensive: they relied on each other for information and became suspicious, even paranoid about outsiders and strangers. Few peasants had any understanding about government, politics or economics. Many were intensely religious and superstition to the point of medievalism; they believed in magic, witchcraft and devilry and carried symbols and icons to ward off bad luck. A sizeable proportion of the peasantry was loyal to the tsar; a similar number knew little of him and cared even less. They hated the bureaucracy for its taxes, regulations and impositions; they feared the army for taking away their sons; they trusted few other than their own.

Regardless of class or status, Russian society was deeply patriarchal. Men were dominant in the community, the workplace and the government. This was not just a product of social values, it was codified in law. The Russian legal code gave husbands almost unlimited power to make decisions within the family. Wives were expected to concede to and obey their husbands. Married women needed their husband’s express permission to take a job, apply for most government permits, obtain a passport or commence higher education. Russian women could not initiate divorce proceedings (though a husband’s legal authority over his family could be removed in cases of incompetence, such as alcoholism or mental illness). If a man died then his male children inherited most of his property; his wife and daughters received only a small share. The average age of marriage for Russia’s peasant women was 20; for the aristocracy and middle-classes it was a few years older.Russia had one of the highest child mortality rates of the Western world. By the late 1800s, around 47 per cent of children in rural areas did not survive to their fifth birthday."

http://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/russian-society/#sthash.HBygPC3d.dpuf

[Robert Ap Ioan]

What are you (Americans mostly) opinions on Obama's actions and the action of the Bundy Militia?

[Kurdanak]

What are you (Americans mostly) opinions on Obama's actions and the action of the Bundy Militia?

Everything related to the Bundy fiasco is truly despicable. I'm mostly pissed off because they took over a !@#$ wildlife refuge, and the wildfires to cover up poaching.  Edited January 7, 2016 by Kurdanak

[durmij]

Everything related to the Bundy fiasco is truly despicable. I'm mostly pissed off because they took over a !@#$ wildlife refuge, and the wildfires to cover up poaching. 

 

Not to mention the fact that they are occupying Burns Paiute Nation lands. The Freemen are complete bullshit.

[Hereno]

Well it would, but the media is too far to the Left. The funny thing is the US helped the Soviets survive and if it wasn't for the really bias reporter in 1933, when he was sent to investigate the Ukrainian Genocide by the Soviets he reported nothing was happening and that the Ukrianians loved them. In reality that was false. You could walk into people's homes and the parents would be dead and the children were alive. Orphanages were overflowing. There they would pick on the smaller children and would litterally peel off his/her skin and eat it. The US sent food to the USSR, but the Soviets sold it for machinery to help industrialize. If the US hadn't done that then the economy would be more stagnate and the USSR would be on the verge of another Civil War and would mirror that of France in the late 1700s-early 1800s.

Meanwhile, in reality...

 

1. The US and other countries invaded the USSR after they signed a peace treaty with Germany.

2. The media in the US is owned and controlled by large corporations with a clear and direct interest in maintaining private ownership of the means of production.

3. You're literally just making shit up.

 

It's been proved time and time again that gun control is effective. Just look at Europe. Lowest crime in the world, and much more gun control. I'm okay with people owning guns, but there needs to be many more restrictions; such as banning assault rifles (I mean come on, they have no use other than to kill people in large numbers), making tougher background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and ban the possession of armor piercing bullets.

Assault rifle is a political term that is practically meaningless to anybody who knows anything about firearms.

 

Simple solution: Allow people to bear arm, except mental illness, irrational and people with unstable conditions.

Except in reality, people with mental illnesses are far more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than the perpetrators. In fact, mental illness doesn't make you more likely to commit a violent crime at all. It only makes you more likely to be a victim.

 

And don't demand that you be allowed to have a firearm. Unless you have a reason to own a firearm, why should you?

Apart from constitutional rights, because making everything illegal by default sounds like a really !@#$ing awful way to manage a state even by the standards of run-of-the-mill liberals and conservatives.

[Lannan13]

Meanwhile, in reality...

 

1. The US and other countries invaded the USSR after they signed a peace treaty with Germany.

2. The media in the US is owned and controlled by large corporations with a clear and direct interest in maintaining private ownership of the means of production.

3. You're literally just making shit up.

 

 

Assault rifle is a political term that is practically meaningless to anybody who knows anything about firearms.

 

 

Except in reality, people with mental illnesses are far more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than the perpetrators. In fact, mental illness doesn't make you more likely to commit a violent crime at all. It only makes you more likely to be a victim.

 

 

Apart from constitutional rights, because making everything illegal by default sounds like a really !@#$ awful way to manage a state even by the standards of run-of-the-mill liberals and conservatives.

Spoken like a real Socialist. Anyways. Of course I assume you are a "Truther" as well, but it doesn't help that the Soviets stole this food since their Kolkoy, or state owned argiculture, was failing. The only time it actually turned around was when Stalin offered the farmers that they would keep some of their crop. After that, production skyrocketed. See what difference Private Property does? Of course I'd be willing to do a debate on the matter as well if you are up for it. 

 

 

Holodomor, Ukrainian Hunger crisis 1933 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor) 

Kolkoy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkhoz)

[Lannan13]

What are you (Americans mostly) opinions on Obama's actions and the action of the Bundy Militia?

The EPA has gone to far in their regulations and such. This would not have happend if the US had restrained their Executive branch. 

[Fox Fire]

 

"TO CONQUER A NATION, FIRST DISARM IT'S CITIZEN."

                                                                                                                                                       -Adolf Hitler-

Congrats on making the single most misinformed and inaccurate piece of shit this forum has yet to bear.

[durmij]

The EPA has gone to far in their regulations and such. This would not have happend if the US had restrained their Executive branch. 

 

Wait waht? So armed insurgents occupy a bird shelter and unceded indigenous territory because 2 of their number were caught committing arson, and it's the fault of one of the weakest environmental agencies any developed country has?

 

[Doktor Avalanche]

Actually the EPA is a vicious tyrant here in WI where they use the local BATF as muscle when they enter into a possible physical conflict in wildlife regions and rural communities. Most of the time its a poaching issue or a fishing zone dispute but the EPA with the State DNR have shot people and dogs over this stuff.

[Lannan13]

Wait waht? So armed insurgents occupy a bird shelter and unceded indigenous territory because 2 of their number were caught committing arson, and it's the fault of one of the weakest environmental agencies any developed country has?

 

It wasn't arsen. They were purifying their fields and the fire got onto federal lands. The EPA isn't really the weakest, but is truely corrupt due to massive vagueness in their definitions and policies.

[Hereno]

Spoken like a real Socialist. Anyways. Of course I assume you are a "Truther" as well, but it doesn't help that the Soviets stole this food since their Kolkoy, or state owned argiculture, was failing. The only time it actually turned around was when Stalin offered the farmers that they would keep some of their crop. After that, production skyrocketed. See what difference Private Property does? Of course I'd be willing to do a debate on the matter as well if you are up for it. 

 

 

Holodomor, Ukrainian Hunger crisis 1933 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor) 

Kolkoy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkhoz)

The only reason they had so many problems in the first place was because people who weren't socialists destroyed their crops and livestock rather than surrender them to the Bolshevik government. Even so, the collectivization of farms and equipment led to a massive boost in production. The difference isn't private property; getting to keep some of the crops does not change who owns the means of production. The difference is an incentive for working harder and the introduction of policies more in line with the political beliefs of the population. At the time of the October revolution, the proletariat of Russia wasn't even 1/5 of the population. I've seen numbers putting it at as low as 5-10%. There were many "strategic retreats" from socialism, starting from the NEP under Lenin, and ending in the will of the population being completely ignored by the government which destroyed itself and sold off assets to high-ranking party members for pennies on the dollar.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Hierophant

[Hereno]

Don't get me wrong - I am not an apologist for Stalin. He did some !@#$ed up shit. But I also try to see what he did in context. We're talking about a dude who spent his childhood being beaten by a drunk father, homeless, and finally having to become a bank robber after he got kicked out of seminary for being poor. He escaped from multiple gulags in Siberia to come back and continue robbing banks to support the Bolsheviks. His country is now facing a famine and somebody isn't going to get enough to eat. If you have to have someone die, why not kill off the people who are the biggest political opponents of your regime and who are also indirectly responsible, as a group, for the famine in the first place? Yeah it's !@#$ing terrible but reality is reality. A decade later, Germany would exterminate millions of people in gas chambers for worse reasons. Japan's regime committed such massacres as the "rape of Nanking" and forcing tens of thousands of foreign women into state service as prostitutes. The US government was more than happy to bomb entire cities of people into the ground, and experiment with the atomic bomb on living civilians, as well as throw people into concentration camps based on their racial background. Really, Stalin was pretty shoulder to shoulder with his contemporaries. That's humanity for you.

[Robert Ap Ioan]

It wasn't arsen. They were purifying their fields and the fire got onto federal lands.

 

As a British land manager, to me this doesn't make sense. If I am using fire to improve ground I make sure it is always under my control, if it is able to go onto someone else's land it obviously isn't under control. If I don't have permission to burn someone else's land that would be classed as criminal damage and arson, if intent could be proved, and negligence if not. Uncontrolled fires are a big no-no in land management.

[Doktor Avalanche]

And don't demand that you be allowed to have a firearm. Unless you have a reason to own a firearm, why should you?

In a free country there is no requirement to show 'need' to exercise a right.

[Lannan13]

"Any "right" of a man that infringes on that of another man is not a right at all."

[Doktor Avalanche]

"Any "right" of a man that infringes on that of another man is not a right at all."

Are you implying that gun ownership infringes on others rights, or are you adding to my statement on Rob Ap Ioan's comment?

[Lannan13]

Are you implying that gun ownership infringes on others rights, or are you adding to my statement on Rob Ap Ioan's comment?

It's somewhat of an add on to yours I guess.

[Fox Fire]

Simple solution: Allow people to bear arm, except mental illness, irrational and people with unstable conditions.

Except that is already the law..... Working great, right? 

 

 

And don't demand that you be allowed to have a firearm. Unless you have a reason to own a firearm, why should you?

Do you have a reason to own a TV? A Vehicle? A McDonalds cheeseburger? 

Do you actually have a reason to own half the shit you own or do you just own it because you like it?

Define a legitimate reason. 

 

 

What are you (Americans mostly) opinions on Obama's actions and the action of the Bundy Militia?

What Bundy militia? The Oath Keepers? That isn't a Bundy thing. 

I think Obamas actions on gun violence are absolutely irrelevant and I will ignore them because that's actually how much they won't do anything.

As for the actions of the Oath Keepers and Bundy crowd, I have mixed feelings One thing I don't take into consideration here is the racist views of Bundy. Such things should not impact a persons opinions regarding the actual legal matter.

 

1. The US and other countries invaded the USSR after they signed a peace treaty with Germany.

 

 

When did the US ever invade the USSR? Are you smoking crack, Hereno?

 

Assault rifle is a political term that is practically meaningless to anybody who knows anything about firearms.

 

 

Nope. Assault rifle is a term that refers to a specific type of firearm. An assault rifle is generally defined as something along these lines:

"Any rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge with a detachable magazine, generally including automatic/selective fire".

 

The exact definition can differ based on the source, but generally speaking, what I stated is identical to what you will find for just about any definition of "assault rifle".

 

Except in reality, people with mental illnesses are far more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than the perpetrators. In fact, mental illness doesn't make you more likely to commit a violent crime at all. It only makes you more likely to be a victim.

 

 

Completely agree with this.

[Hereno]

When did the US ever invade the USSR? Are you smoking crack, Hereno?

The Allied intervention was a multi-national military expedition launched during the Russian Civil War in 1918. The initial goals were to help the Czechoslovak Legion, secure supplies of munitions and armaments in Russian ports, and re-establish the Eastern Front. After winning World War I, the Allies militarily backed the anti-Bolshevik White forces in Russia. Allied efforts were hampered by divided objectives, war-weariness after the just finished greater conflict, and a lack of domestic support. These factors, together with the evacuation of the Czechoslovak Legion, compelled the Allies to withdraw from North Russia and Siberia in 1920, though Japanese forces occupied parts of Siberia until 1922 and the northern half of Sakhalin until 1925.[1]

 

The Allied intervention and its foreign troops were used effectively by the Bolsheviks to demonstrate that their enemies were backed by Western capital. Despite the Allies being able to withdraw in good order after significant defenses against the Red Army, the Bolsheviks were eventually victorious against the White Army, leading to the establishment of the Soviet Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

 

11,000 American troops on Russian soil. No, I'm not smoking crack, I just know what I'm talking about.

 

Nope. Assault rifle is a term that refers to a specific type of firearm. An assault rifle is generally defined as something along these lines:

"Any rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge with a detachable magazine, generally including automatic/selective fire".

 

The exact definition can differ based on the source, but generally speaking, what I stated is identical to what you will find for just about any definition of "assault rifle".

Sigh. Wrong again.

 

In the United States "assault weapons" are usually defined in legislation as semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military firearms, including assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified a definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

a folding or telescoping stock

a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon

a bayonet mount

a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor

a grenade launcher

Some states have created even more restrictive definitions of Assault Weapons, such as the NY SAFE Act, which changed the restriction to one or more (rather "two or more") of the above features and expanded the restricted muzzle devices beyond just flash suppressors to include compensators and muzzle breaks [sic].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

 

The difference between a legal rifle and an assault rifle is the type of stock and whether or not there's a pistol grip. It's a !@#$ing joke.

[Fox Fire]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

 

11,000 American troops on Russian soil. No, I'm not smoking crack, I just know what I'm talking about.

 

 

Sigh. Wrong again.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

 

The difference between a legal rifle and an assault rifle is the type of stock and whether or not there's a pistol grip. It's a !@#$ joke.

That's hardly an invasion of the USSR, a state that did not officially exist. 

 

As for the assault rifle I'm not wrong at all. If you simply look at the very first words in your very own link, it's literally the definition I just gave you:

 

An assault rifle is a fully automatic selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

 

^Literally the very first words in the article. 

 

From google:

 

 

as·sault ri·fle

noun

noun: assault rifle; plural noun: assault rifles

1. a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

 

1.  

dictionary.com:

 

 

assault rifle  

• Word Origin

noun

1.

a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire,utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.

2.

a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usuallymodified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

 

 

 

Webster:

 

Any automatic or semi-automatic rifle with large capacity magazine designed for military use.

 

 

But not only that, the definition you quoted is identical to the one I provided. I already stated that definitions can differ, but that they all follow those lines. I was not quoting an exact definition, but using my own words. It's not a joke. Saying it is is like saying the difference between a shotgun and a bolt action rifle is a joke. There are clearly differences that separate the two. Anyone who knows anything about guns can tell you this.