Which states were "neglecting their responsibilities to maintain an effectively armed state militias"? I'm curious as to your opinion as to why George Mason, the author of the 2nd amendment, did not bring up the point you raise either in his writings or debates?

You really didn't get the point at all - hardly surprising!

you didnt get it dugdog47 is right .hitler has nothing to do with americans right to bear arms.we cant get rid of guns in america there are to many its to late and if you can take
them away from everyone great then we can go back to swords.

Thanx for the backup, wally.

As to going back to swords, I'm more of a compound bow fan, but swords are good too.

"You really didn't get the point at all - hardly surprising!"

I got his point. Marked him up.

You didn't get it either. Sheesh!

Good link Paratus. The section on Germany was informative. It shows how misleading this "Hitler gun control lie" is.

They do indeed, thanks for proving my point!

Where are the facts of your post (which BTW has been reposted here multiple times and is nearly 2 months old)? The "fact" that it wasn't Hitler who sponsored gun control but the Weimar Republic immediately before him? Does your "fact" negate that the German citizens were recently disarmed by their government prior to Hitler's rise to power? Does your article negate that the Jews were disarmed prior to persecution? Does your article negate the hundreds of years of history in which gun concentration has resulted in oppression and Democide? Here is a fact for you the Weimar Republic did something very similar to our QE immediately prior to a bout of hyperinflation which facilitated Hitlers rise to power. Jobs were so scarce that the people welcomed Hitler because he promised full employment. History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes!

Hm.
Makes you wonder whether they regretted turfing some of their finest scientists out of their jobs back then.

“Sorry, this is nonsense….” No it isn’t. The article is correct. The gun control laws in Germany were far stricter in the Weimar Republic. The Nazis relaxed those laws.

“The control of firearms was one of the means by which he controlled the masses...”
This is a common myth all too often voiced on US forums.

The Nazis controlled the masses through the abolition of free speech / freedom of assembly, by banning opposition parties and crushing the unions, through control of the media, erosion of privacy (correspondence could be opened and read, telephone conversations tapped) and warrantless searches. And, of course, for good measure there were the thugs in brown shirts who acted with complete impunity.

“Lack of fire armed resistance certainly helped their conquest of all the European peoples.” Not so.

The likes of Quisling, Petain and Seyss-Inquart helped far more.

I’m not quite sure how you envisage the “European peoples” withstanding the full might of the German army with a few shotguns or how you think Hitler had any power to change the gun laws in those countries before invading.

The resistance in those countries, btw, WAS armed.

"Tyrannical government confiscates arms first. Suppression of liberty follows."

In Germany it was exactly the other way round.

"The Nazis controlled the masses through the abolition of free speech / freedom of assembly, by banning opposition parties and crushing the unions, through control of the media, erosion of privacy (correspondence could be opened and read, telephone conversations tapped) and warrantless searches. And, of course, for good measure there were the thugs in brown shirts who acted with complete impunity"

We are then following the Nazi example in the USA, as the brutal suppression of the OCCUPY movement by the gestapo, the hate crime/hate speech legislation, NDAA domestic terror edicts , the elimination of privacy and destruction of unions is a parallel course. Guns come next perhaps.

A chilling thought, indeed.
Media censorship, wiretapping, patriotact, detention without trial etc certainly do give cause for concern

That "radical reform" is unlikely to happen under a two-party system whose policies are virtually indistinguishable.

which is exactly why I am a gun rights advocate. Do I think that I will ever lead an armed resistance against a tyrannical government? Honestly no and the odds of that happening are slim to none. That said, I would rather have the option than to give it up and hope our government has my best interests in mind. History shows that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I must admit that, as a European, I am quite intrigued by this oft-cited American concept of an armed citizenry defending itself against a "tyrannical government". It all sounds terribly swashbuckling and romantic and heroic, but do you really think it's a realistic notion in this day and age, given that you live in the most heavily armed nation in the entire world, bristling with drones and nukes and bunker-busters?
People can already be detained without trial, executed by the state, etc. Isn't that more alarming?

the reality is that our country is so overworked most people really have no idea about the things you have mentioned. I agree that these principals are quite troubling which is why I believe citizens should be allowed access to the same arms as police. Is resistance to tyranny a potential reality? I think if you look into history you will see it is replete with instances of armed resistances playing a major role in defeating superior forces. Further all of our troops, police and politicians swear an oath to uphold the constitution. If there were an insurrection scenario there would certainly be military defectors. That said I really hope it never comes to that but as you mentioned most of the people are still caught in the false paradigmn created by the two party system. What can you do? The elephants and asses screwing the masses!

"People can already be detained without trial, executed by the state, etc. Isn't that more alarming?"
******************************************************************************
It's alarming to me and it's also alarming (from what I've observed in this forum) that it doesn't seem to alarm those who voted for President Obama.

Yes, I do find it peculiar that the self-same policies appear to be criticised/applauded depending on who signs off on them.

John Pilger summed it up very nicely back in 2009 (I've posted this before, so apologies if you've seen it already) long before the world woke up and started rubbing its eyes at what was happening:

John Pilger. Obama and Empire (full version: 30 mins)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5gTSbSXhV0

5-minute excerpt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfVULT8vdUk

No, I had not seen these videos before. Thank you for reposting the links, Molli.

My pleasure (if that's the right word). I hope you had time to watch. John Pilger is a journalist of great integrity, who certainly cannot be accused of being a "rightwinger" by any stretch of the imagination. And yet his attack on the Obama presidency (even in such early days) is scathing. And prescient.

I have a problem with your logic. The political party that seems to be championing the elite, the rich and the powerful, are the Republicans. The political party that seems to be the best friend of the military industrial complex, are the Republicans.

How can the political party that is on the side of the rich, powerful and industrial elite, be the party that is against gun control at the same time?

If it is the elite and powerful who want the country disarmed, wouldn’t they just tell their Republican friends to get the job done?

Went looking for the top sites for Bilderberg Group, Tony Gosling kept popping up as a major source.

Went to Tony's site where I found all sorts of things along the lines of:
"What secrets connect Egypt‘s Great Pyramids, the Freemasons, and the Council on Foreign Relations?"

Oh, yes, this is someone I'm going to take seriously. He's probably got the source for who's hiding the cure for my Type 1 Diabetes too.

I still don't understand why both political parties, especially the Republicans, are not calling for gun control if that’s what the Plutarchs want.

I find it hard to follow how you can call Obama a Republican for calling for some sort of gun control, when gun control is the last thing any Republican would ever call for.

Yes, the Democrats are now right of center, but they are still liberal enough to call for some kind off gun control, or at least some real debate. The Republicans on the other hand, who are the true champions of a far right plutocracy, are determined to keep Americans armed to the teeth. The Republicans, and therefore the Plutarchs they represent, want Americans armed with the most dangerous weapons they can get.

If the very people Americans are afraid are going to take their liberties away, are also the same people who want Americans armed, don’t you find that all a little problematic?

Very problematic, and the only answer I have is that when you are in a confused state, and do not know which way to run, you are a deer in the headlights, Perhaps this whole debate over guns, is more about deflecting our attention away from what they are really doing behind the scenes to rob us of our rights via legislation that we won't know about until it becomes law.

I can see the whole gun debate itself being nothing more than another distraction while austerity measures are about to hurt every American except the one percent again.

I shudder to think that the American government, financial institutions and corporations are pitting Americans against each other, and making sure they are armed well enough, and desperate enough, to do something about it.

But you know what? Not much would surprise me.

The Harper Conservatives in Canada just forced through an omnibus bill, Bill C-38 that contains something like 100 peaces of legislation that the National Post says is “400-plus pages of legislation that makes widespread changes to almost every facet of Canadian life.”

This bill had almost no debate in Parliament and nothing that the bill contained was ever reported in a democratic manner. I read a party letter at my conservative neighbours that boasted the fact that 68 of the pieces of legislation that the bill contained were accomplished. I asked my conservative friend what the 68 pieces of legislation did, and he could not tell me what even 1 of them were, let alone what they did.

Making changes like that with no political debate and without the public knowing what the changes are beforehand, is called a dictatorship I think.

Note The AS50 is MADE IN ENGLAND !

NOTE:

NJ Gov. Chris Cristie looks like NERO, and he will probably be a Presidential candidate in 2016.

"The Hitler gun control lie goes right along with the...'Hitler was an atheist' lie".

Yes, even the belt buckle of the Wehrmacht uniform bore the slogan "Gott mit uns"

Can you send us some historical records or links that show the Catholic Church was officially against the Nazi regime? I have a lot of things that say exactly the opposite. You first.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

Have you got a couple of days to go through the proof I have of the Catholic Churches support of Nazi Germany and its atrocities?

This is from Pope Benedict XVI: A Biography of Joseph Ratzinger, John L. Allen Jr.

Many ordinary Catholics objected to attacks on their church, but there was simply no opposition to Nazism tout ensemble. ... In fact, there were key points at which Nazi and
Catholic attitudes intersected and created a basis for mutual support. Both groups hated the Weimar Republic. The Nazis opposed Weimar because it was allegedly too Jewish and led by the “November Criminals” who sold out the country after the First World War; Catholics objected to it because it smacked of liberalism, sexual degeneracy, and an irreligious spirit.

Cardinal Faulhaber, for example, gave a speech in May 1933 in which he expressed thanks for the Volksgemeinschaft, or spirit of community, which Hitler had fostered, and rejected “liberal individualism.” Moreover, Catholics shared with Nazis an instinctive fear of the Bolsheviks.

Finally, there was a form of anti-Jewish sentiment that was openly accepted among Catholics, based in part on the theological argument that the Jews sinned by rejecting Christ and in part on the historical fact that many Jews had played leading roles in the Kulturkampf. As early as 1925, a Franciscan priest named Erhard Schuland wrote a book called “Katholizismus und Vaterland” (Catholicism and Fatherland) that called on Germans to fight “the destructive influence of the Jews in religion, morality, literature and art, and political and social life.” Schuland expressed what was very much the consensus in German Catholicism of the day...

Support for the Nazis, their social policies, and their anti-Semitism was not limited to ordinary Catholics and a few random priests:
Archbishop Konrad Gröber of Freiburg was known as the “Brown Bishop” because he was such an enthusiastic supporter of the Nazis. In 1933, he became a “sponsoring member” of the SS. After the war, however, he claimed to have been such an opponent of the Nazis that they had planned to crucify him on the door for the Freiburg Cathedral.

Bishop Wilhlem Berning of Osnabrück sat with the Deutsche Christen Reichsbishop in the Prussian State Council from 1933 to 1945, a clear signal of support for the Nazi regime.

Cardinal Bertram also had some affinity for the Nazis. In 1933, for example, he refused to intervene on behalf of Jewish merchants who were the targets of Nazi boycotts, saying that they were a group “which has no very close bond with the church.”

Bishop Buchberger of Regensburg called Nazi racism directed at Jews “justified self-defence” in the face of “overly powerful Jewish capital.”

Bishop Hilfrich of Limburg said that they true Christian religion “made its way not from the Jews but in spite of them.”

Because the Catholic leadership did not consistently oppose the Nazi policies, it was relatively easy for the Nazis to co-opt the Catholic churches in their effort to round up and exterminate the Jews. A large number of Jews converted to Christianity in order to avoid persecution and the only way the Nazis found them out was because of the help of Catholic authorities:

After April 7, 1933, civil servants in Germany were required to prove that they were not Jews. Because births had been registered by the state only since 1874, the church was called upon to provide many records. The Catholic Church cooperated right up to the end of the war. Likewise, after the 1935 Nüremberg laws that forbade marriage between Aryans and non-Aryans, most Catholic priests did not perform such ceremonies, even though the number of Jewish conversions to Catholicism was accelerating because of the persecution.

Yes, right up until the end of the war, Catholic clergy were actively assisting the Nazi program of racial purification. They provided detailed records of who converted and who didn't, who married and Jew and who didn't. When two people wanted to marry, Catholic priests enforced Nazi race laws against Aryans being allowed to marry non-Aryans. The Nazis' agenda of racial discrimination and purification would not have worked without the active, willing, and eager cooperation of Christian churches.

After the war, the Allies tried to rely on Catholic clergy to help them in their program of de-Nazification of the government. That was a mistake — Catholic assistance to the Nazis hadn't ended when the Nazis surrendered. Catholic bishops realized that eliminating all Nazis would leave Communists and Social Democrats in charge and they concluded that that would be worse than having the Nazis in power — so they basically lied to the Allies. Unrepentant Nazis were returned to positions of authority over the German people because Catholic clergy gave them a clean bill of political and ideological health.

Eventually the Allies grew wise to the Catholic duplicity and stopped relying on the word of priests about whether someone had been a Nazi. That is the legacy of the Catholic Church from Nazi Germany: not resistance, but cooperation; not the defence of principle but the defence of social power.

Here is a PDF that shows that not only did the Catholic Church and their priests agree with the Nazi message, many priests actually joined in the fighting in Nazi uniform.

https://repository.library.brown.edu/fedora/objects/bdr:103/datastreams/PDF/cont...

Having lived all my many decades in Red States:

"Did it ever occur to you guys that many gun rights advocates are not the mouth breathing, neck bearded, little dicked, tinfoil crack pots you are making them out to be?"

No. I know they are.

"Perhaps these people are simply paying attention to current events!"

Same garbage I heard on H.L. Hunt's radio shows in the 1950s. So, it's not "Current Events." It's Current Paranoia.

"Having lived all my many decades in Red States:"

"No. I know they are."

Birds of a feather and all that I guess.

Naw, the Liberal Union Resident Consortium gets together every decade and we have a lottery as to where we're assigned to live. The losers get Blue states. The winners get red States. red States assignment is to subtly cause as much chaos amoung the Reich as possible.

I keep winning. I think I was picked by the LURC since I was offered Annapolis, Dartmouth, and several other Reichwing schools.

When a young man, early 20s, I was picked to reside in Blue States for short periods to get proper training and acculturation.

It's Liberal version of what the Brothers Koch do to H.S. and college aged Reichers/Birchers at George Mason University Mercatus Center.

They react to facts like vampires react to holy water! :D

What facts? Were not the Jews disarmed priorto being oppressed?

Hello pot? This is the kettle... You're black! This article is the quintesence of false equivalence! Touting points like this are comparable to "gun nuts" saying Kennesaw GA is an example of how guns stop murders. Both arguments detract from the valid facts which both sides of the argument have. The only reason JFK solved the Cuban missile crisis is because he didn't listen to his advisors when they told him Kruschev couldn't be reasoned with. As long as we continue to demonize the other side there will be no meaningful reform!

Sigh...

Agree!

You simply make my point. Your delusion is complete. and you have my sympathy.

(however, I voted you up for the "mouth breathing, neck bearded, little dicked, tinfoil crack pots" remark - this is a most excellent description of the gun nuts - Bravo!)

You're right...sort of.

The government in question is a neo-bolshevik government run by people that have the same ideologies, policies and end goals as the same Communists that starved and slaughtered millions of Ukrainians, Russians and Poles years before Hitler even got his groove on.

See, the Bolshevik Communists believed in "reasonable" gun control too. First they made everyone register their guns, which seems reasonable enough, and then once they knew who had the guns they just went and rounded them all up and shot them in the back of the head.

The problem is that this article doesn't benefit the gun control gun grab crowd at all; it merely makes an idiot out of anyone promoting twisted/false history. The same argument can be made of those who are still pushing this Republicans=Nazi nonsense, when they haven't the slightest clue and probably never even read one book or any legitimate material on Germany during WW1 and WW2. And no Spielberg doesn't count.

Gun rights advocates are the ignorant ones and they "react to facts like vampires to holy water" but yet when I state the facts you never have a knowledgeable retort. were the Jews disarmed prior to being oppressed? Did not Stalin and Pol pot and Mao disarm the populaces prior to their reign of terror? Is it not fair to say that the sentiment of disarming the populace prior to totalitarian regimes is a recurring theme throughout history? This article is BS you all suffer from confirmation bias. Open your eyes!

You obviously didn't read my first comment to you at the bottom of this thread (not that I'm surprised). To claim that disarming a population is a reason they were suppressed or killed is an bogus argument for many reasons. But aside from that, if you follow your own "logic" it proves to be flawed.

Consider: (1)You have stated that various groups were disarmed prior to their being suppressed and/or killed. (2)Your argument against gun control is that an armed population is less at risk of being rounded up and killed. But you stated yourself these groups DID have guns (how else could they be "disarmed"?). So specifically, the fact they were armed had no impact whatsoever when their oppressors decided to come for them.

The crux of the issue here is people like you delude yourselves into thinking a gun will protect you if push comes to shove. It won't because the other guys will always have bigger guns and more of them. Anyone who thinks otherwise has watched "Red Dawn" too many times. In reality, the kids in that movie would have been dead on day one. Even George Washington needed a well organized, well supplied, equally armed, adequately trained military force to defeat the British, not a bunch of disorganized fractious colonials.

The only real defense anyone has against an oppressive government is to, like Washington raise an army, or leave the country. I would also add that if anyone feels so threatened by our government that they feel they need to own multiple assault style weapons, should for their own safety and the safety of those around them, go live somewhere else.

The reality of the matter is that many people who go bonkers even at the mention of reasonable gun control measures so kids don't get murdered, are people who live in abject fear of everything around them. They fear their neighbors, their government, law enforcement, immigrants, their children etc. but mostly themselves. To that end, their guns are like Teddy Bears, something that makes them feel better but really can't keep bad things from happening.

Which groups are you saying 'Did have guns"? I agree that Red Dawn was complete BS and I have no delusions about armed insurrection. Do I fear my government? who doesn't that is paying attention to current events? I do not own any weapons for the purpose of defending against tyrants but I believe the second Amendment was created for that purpose. I am also not "Going bonkers over reasonable gun legislation" as much as I am saying that the legislation is not reasonable.

"As long as we continue to demonize the other side there will be no meaningful reform"

I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. People really do have to listen to one another. It's the only way to solve issues, large or small. Polarisation and intransigence merely cement the status quo.

Please mind your own countries business. You live in a place with gun control laws that are very expansive. If you move to the US then I will welcome your opinion, until then just be happy with your violent crime rate which far exceeds ours in the US and is the highest in the EU!

What a load of bullshit!

What is BS that I tell him to mind his business or that the UK, (WHere he lives) has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and still has a higher violent crime rate than the US or the entire rest of the EU?

"Please mind your own countries business" -- which country do you have in mind there?Since the main thrust of the article focuses on gun control laws in Nazi Germany, it seems a little odd to insist that only Americans should be allowed to comment.

Oh no, not that old chestnut again about the UK having a higher violent crime rate than the US. It simply isn't true.

Who are you to tell me what to do?
I will stop the day USA is keeping to its own business, by them, as long you guys screwing up internationally, i will open my mouth here.

Uk having a higher crime rate than USA, that's such bollocks, man,
you just are the livng proof of my post!
Giant Bollocks eaten and vomited unchecked to the mass, a spreading plague of disinformation

Your obedience and trust to your master is amazing

Speak up loud and clear, alexandrek -- so that even the folks in the back row can hear you! ;-)

Thanks, alexandrek. That one always irks me too. Have the people who repeat this myth ever actually bothered to find out what constitutes a "crime of violence" in the UK?

I do sometimes wonder what the FBI would make of having to log as "violent" such dastardly deeds as "causing alarm in a public place" or "endangering life at sea" or "possession of a sharp object". But, at least the bobbies won't pull a gun on us for it.

Source?

You have every right to comment on our garbage foreign policy. You don't see me lobbying for looser gun control in your country though.

I never said only Americans should comment on this thread but Alex is always posting his opinion on us gun policy. Frankly I am tired of it. That said I enjoy informed contributions such as you have made even if you don't agree with me!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=us%20vs%20uk%20violent%20crime&am...,d.aWM. Yes we do. Here you go

well, you did by supporting some made up so called report about european countries wanting their gun back
Anyway, i do it as a friend, you see, if i didn't care about you or, worst, if I hated you, i would be happy you guys got enough weapons to kill each others, but that's not how we are, after all, we french were your best allies in your revolution against the brit, isn'it!

Scroll down to p.16 of this HomeOffficeReport for the full list of "crimes of violence":

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-s...

Can you please show me where I supported the video you are referring to? I supported the sentiment behind the video (That we should not follow the UK in gun concentration) in my post but I don't recall showing support for the video itself. Remember also ho on the video in question I upvoted you and your personal insight on the state of affairs in the UK since you live there? I commended you for dispelling the false information even though the false information supported my preconceived notions.

what am I looking for here?

Thanks for the link.

I admit I didn't watch all of it because, although it started off well (correctly pointing out that the definition of "violent crime" is different in both countries) it then became somewhat vague and speculative.

I think you might have more luck determining for yourself (without media spin) whether the "higher violent crime rate" is accurate or not simply by taking a look at the official Home Office statistics I sent you earlier.

The video you sent states that it is not possible to compare -- but that seems misleading.

After all, you just have to subtract everything from the HomeOffice stats that don't fall into the (clearly defined) US categories.

What are you looking for?

Well, you asked me for a "source" on violent crime rates in the UK (or at least that is how I interpreted your comment, which only said "Source?")

So the link I sent is to the official HomeOffice statistics on crime.
Page 16 lists "crimes of violence" by category.

As you will see, these categories cover a far wider range of offenses than the four very specific categories that define "violent crime" in the US.

If you were asking for a "source" for something else, I apologise... it's not always clear here on Current precisely which comment someone is responding to.

some screw up piece of disinformation, badly made of footage from right wing Australian and brits demanding the end of gun ban, here on current.

like 50 idiots in each country walking, was so outdated the brit were attacking tony blair, well, one of those made up NRA typical bollocks they call "facts"

I work with law enforcement. They are as likely to turn against the government as they are to fight for it. Local, federal and military are all different entities. They have many members who rather see the president dead rather than enforce national gun confiscation.

Yes but the Jews were disarmed long before therestof their property was taken.

this is the thing. We will never be to the point where insurrection is seriously considered unless there is a serious reduction in quality of life. In a situation where quality of life is reduced to the point where insurrection is considered, any job will be worth keeping and regardless of their opinions, cops will do as they are told in order to support their families ( who could blame them?). That said I do not think there is some orchestrated conspiracy for one world govenment. What I think is even scarrier. I believe it is many groups just trying to get theirs and that no one is conducting the crazy train. The economy is far too complex for anyone to really fully understand. Personally I do believe that ineptitude could some day result in a serious reduction in the quality of life or the insolvency of the state. Look at Detroit where the don't send cops to even respond to burglaries. I for one believe I have the right to own whatever law enforcement owns and the Supreme court in the Heller decision agrees with me! So some day if some cop goes all Chris Dorner I will have a fair chance at self defense ( Chris dormer is the only one to ever use a .50 BMG in a crime and he had it because he was a police officer as CA residents cannot own them!