QUOTE (Stingray @ Nov 13 2011, 04:01 PM) 
..well..State of California have their own way...
Well it was a movie, so not exactly true.
Full Version: Shadowrun Setting: An Armed Society?
Well it was a movie, so not exactly true.
IRL
they do have their own way...
taxes, constitutional rights do not apply, pollution laws...
they do have their own way...
taxes, constitutional rights do not apply, pollution laws...
QUOTE (Irion @ Nov 13 2011, 04:00 PM)
@Daylen
Concealment is enough for how much better rifles are right now. But if you want to make them better (or pistols worse)...
Concealment is enough for how much better rifles are right now. But if you want to make them better (or pistols worse)...
You do know there is a reason many people carry full size pistols instead of subcompacts right? You do know there is a reason for the old saying "the pistol on your hip is only for fighting your way to a real gun". Larger more powerful firearms are more powerful, and not by a negligible amount. Concealment IS the only reason for tiny pistols. Concealment and encumbrance are the reason to carry a pistol instead of a rifle, not that the damage is about the same so ya might as well. The only reason to have the damage between light pistols and battle rifles about the same is that the rule makers don't want players using rifles; or if the damage from firearms are not very deadly then its to nudge players away from using firearms.
@CanRay
And you will probably end up shooting an actor... (Or of how many guys trying to rape a women carrying only a kitchen knife have you heard of ?)
But I guess in real life, the woman will get hit in the process, too.
@Daylen
So Israel develpped the UZI because their military needed a weapon which was better to conceal than a normal assault rifle?
Or did they inventid to fight in close quaters...
Same thing is said if talking about the weapons carried by SWAT-Teams etc.
(Yeah, if you are just talking about holdouts compared to normal pistols/MP, you are correct)
QUOTE
Well, I have to admit, "Dirty" Harry had a damned good point about the naked guy with a knife and a hard-on chasing an unarmed woman.
And you will probably end up shooting an actor... (Or of how many guys trying to rape a women carrying only a kitchen knife have you heard of ?)
But I guess in real life, the woman will get hit in the process, too.
@Daylen
QUOTE
Larger more powerful firearms are more powerful, and not by a negligible amount. Concealment IS the only reason for tiny pistols.
So Israel develpped the UZI because their military needed a weapon which was better to conceal than a normal assault rifle?
Or did they inventid to fight in close quaters...
Same thing is said if talking about the weapons carried by SWAT-Teams etc.
(Yeah, if you are just talking about holdouts compared to normal pistols/MP, you are correct)
QUOTE (Irion @ Nov 13 2011, 04:30 PM)
@CanRay
And you will probably end up shooting an actor... (Or of how many guys trying to rape a women carrying only a kitchen knife have you heard of ?)
But I guess in real life, the woman will get hit in the process, too.
And you will probably end up shooting an actor... (Or of how many guys trying to rape a women carrying only a kitchen knife have you heard of ?)
But I guess in real life, the woman will get hit in the process, too.
Are you saying actors are rapists? or rapists are only acting?
Are you guessing that firearms are not precise or accurate and to hit anything one must spray bullets everywhere? If so, you would be wrong.
@Daylen
You are not a fast thinker, are you.
Think about it, it is quite easy...
(One hint: If you see a guy in a black cape with a lot of make up biting a woman in the neck...)
No, I am just assuming the two are moving quite fast and you are not an arms length away. Add to that a bad angle and they guy stumbeling a bit... (Sun in the eyes, cold hands (due to cold weather, wind etc etc)
QUOTE
Are you saying actors are rapists? or rapists are only acting?
You are not a fast thinker, are you.
Think about it, it is quite easy...
(One hint: If you see a guy in a black cape with a lot of make up biting a woman in the neck...)
QUOTE
Are you guessing that firearms are not precise or accurate and to hit anything one must spray bullets everywhere? If so, you would be wrong.
No, I am just assuming the two are moving quite fast and you are not an arms length away. Add to that a bad angle and they guy stumbeling a bit... (Sun in the eyes, cold hands (due to cold weather, wind etc etc)
QUOTE (Stingray @ Nov 13 2011, 02:00 PM)
and people wonder why some consider UK as lost case when people's right's are considered.. 
I don't wonder, since the reason is rather obvious: Didn't do the reasearch
QUOTE (Stingray @ Nov 13 2011, 02:36 PM)
( by supreme court decision LEO do NOT have obligation to protect private citizen..)
The second prayer mill of gun discussions, and just as wrong as the "no self-defence in EUSSR" one. The case in question was not about any general obligation, but merely ruled that the law in question did not have to be enforced because state law didn't say so. In other words, lawmakers screwed up.
(The third classic would be "Hitler disarmed people", but that one has already been taken care of)
QUOTE (Sengir @ Nov 13 2011, 06:57 PM)
I don't wonder, since the reason is rather obvious: Didn't do the reasearch
The second prayer mill of gun discussions, and just as wrong as the "no self-defence in EUSSR" one. The case in question was not about any general obligation, but merely ruled that the law in question did not have to be enforced because state law didn't say so. In other words, lawmakers screwed up.
(The third classic would be "Hitler disarmed people", but that one has already been taken care of)
The second prayer mill of gun discussions, and just as wrong as the "no self-defence in EUSSR" one. The case in question was not about any general obligation, but merely ruled that the law in question did not have to be enforced because state law didn't say so. In other words, lawmakers screwed up.
(The third classic would be "Hitler disarmed people", but that one has already been taken care of)
..if i recoll..hitler have ordered disarmanement of non- aryan people to protect SS-troops...
law-abiding citizens complied (unfortunably)...
and making removing their freedom, rights (and life) easier for SS...
really disgusting piece of history of human race...
QUOTE (Stingray @ Nov 13 2011, 05:16 PM)
..if i recoll..hitler have ordered disarmanement of non- aryan people to protect SS-troops...
law-abiding citizens complied (unfortunably)...
and making removing their freedom, rights (and life) easier for SS...
really disgusting piece of history of human race...
law-abiding citizens complied (unfortunably)...
and making removing their freedom, rights (and life) easier for SS...
really disgusting piece of history of human race...
Yes, but you have to find new arguments and new evidence every time. Just because something is true doesn't mean you can use it again once liberals know about it. This of course does not apply to statists.
Hitler was a mild example, the better examples are USSR that disarmed people then starved them to death and China who did the same, and Burma who did other atrocities, heck while we're at it lets include Egypt where the Coptic are being attacked and murdered and some places in Africa where only one group is armed the others get shot and chopped up with machetes.
@Stingray
I did quote the effects of the law.
It mostly made it possible for people to own guns.
But here it is again..
Before that it was hard to legally own a handgun, if you were not employes by the state or in very few occupations.
To a lesser extend this was also true for rifles...
@Daylen
The point is, it is not true. Hitler ARMED the people.
Nazi-Germany went from tough gun control (legislation before the Nazis) to close to NO guncontrol.
I did quote the effects of the law.
It mostly made it possible for people to own guns.
But here it is again..
QUOTE
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.[6]
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.[6]
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons
Before that it was hard to legally own a handgun, if you were not employes by the state or in very few occupations.
To a lesser extend this was also true for rifles...
@Daylen
The point is, it is not true. Hitler ARMED the people.
Nazi-Germany went from tough gun control (legislation before the Nazis) to close to NO guncontrol.
QUOTE (Sengir @ Nov 13 2011, 04:57 PM)
I don't wonder, since the reason is rather obvious: Didn't do the reasearch
The second prayer mill of gun discussions, and just as wrong as the "no self-defence in EUSSR" one. The case in question was not about any general obligation, but merely ruled that the law in question did not have to be enforced because state law didn't say so. In other words, lawmakers screwed up.
(The third classic would be "Hitler disarmed people", but that one has already been taken care of)
The second prayer mill of gun discussions, and just as wrong as the "no self-defence in EUSSR" one. The case in question was not about any general obligation, but merely ruled that the law in question did not have to be enforced because state law didn't say so. In other words, lawmakers screwed up.
(The third classic would be "Hitler disarmed people", but that one has already been taken care of)
I don't think you understand how laws work in the states. Lawmakers did not "screw up". Laws do not restrict or force people to act, only give powers and restrict behavior. Courts over here would be the only way such a duty could be established. Plus SCOTUS does not take cases that ONLY apply in one locality, because "lawmakers screwed up", such would be a waste of time. SCOTUS takes on cases that apply to the entire Republic.
QUOTE (Irion @ Nov 13 2011, 05:33 PM)
...
@Daylen
The point is, it is not true. Hitler ARMED the people.
Nazi-Germany went from tough gun control (legislation before the Nazis) to close to NO guncontrol.
@Daylen
The point is, it is not true. Hitler ARMED the people.
Nazi-Germany went from tough gun control (legislation before the Nazis) to close to NO guncontrol.
Jews, Gipsies and others certainly were not armed and had gun restrictions. Or do you not consider them people?
QUOTE (Daylen @ Nov 13 2011, 06:43 PM)
Jews, Gipsies and others certainly were not armed and had gun restrictions. Or do you not consider them people?
..Hitler did not not considered them as citizens, only people that can trace their roots to
" aryan" people would be considered as citizens..
others...no roots to "aryan" people.. no citizenship, no rights...
@Daylen
So tell me, how many of them were able to have guns before?
They were banned from most of the jobs entiteling you for a permit anyway.
So tell me, how many of them were able to have guns before?
They were banned from most of the jobs entiteling you for a permit anyway.
QUOTE (Stingray @ Nov 13 2011, 05:47 PM)
..Hitler did not not considered them as citizens, only people that can trace their roots to
" aryan" people would be considered as citizens..
others...no roots to "aryan" people.. no citizenship, no rights...
" aryan" people would be considered as citizens..
others...no roots to "aryan" people.. no citizenship, no rights...
So? If anything that is the best argument for using this example. Taking away someones right to an effective means(determined by the individual) of self defense, is evidence that such an authority does not recognize someone's right to continue living. I think Jews are people, thus all of the people were not armed, only some, and those that were not armed were systematically exterminated.
QUOTE (Daylen @ Nov 13 2011, 06:54 PM)
So? If anything that is the best argument for using this example. Taking away someones right to an effective means(determined by the individual) of self defense, is evidence that such an authority does not recognize someone's right to continue living. I think Jews are people, thus all of the people were not armed, only some, and those that were not armed were systematically exterminated.
....
self-defence is human right.
and trusting blindly that goverment protect you...
" those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither" (Benjamin Franklin)
Fighting for your freedom and Security is Your Right that no goverment can not, should not be ignore..
@Daylen
Ah jesus christ.
This was one of the last laws passed before the wars.
05.17.39 There were 215.000 yews left in germany. (The law was passed 11.11.38 )
So to how many do you think this law applied? (Manly it was just a propaganda reaction to the death of Rath in Paris.)
100? 1000? Regarding the strict restriction on arms before, I do not think many...
@Stingray
How many did comply? What do you think?
And what did it matter?
Jesus christ. Complying... If it would not be that sad, it would be really funny.
Most who had guns, had them taken away by the SS already. (Together with such dangerous things like bread knifes)
Mostly just for the heck of it.
Hard gun laws were passed before Hitler during the time of the "Weimarer Republik" mostly to fight the growin influance of right wing groups...(1928)
Ah jesus christ.
This was one of the last laws passed before the wars.
05.17.39 There were 215.000 yews left in germany. (The law was passed 11.11.38 )
So to how many do you think this law applied? (Manly it was just a propaganda reaction to the death of Rath in Paris.)
100? 1000? Regarding the strict restriction on arms before, I do not think many...
@Stingray
How many did comply? What do you think?
And what did it matter?
Jesus christ. Complying... If it would not be that sad, it would be really funny.
Most who had guns, had them taken away by the SS already. (Together with such dangerous things like bread knifes)
Mostly just for the heck of it.
Hard gun laws were passed before Hitler during the time of the "Weimarer Republik" mostly to fight the growin influance of right wing groups...(1928)
A nice little overview of the discussion so far
[What happened before: Somebody brought up the "Nazis banned guns" myth again, Irion disproved it, Daylen even responed to that posting, indicating that he did read it]
Me: Nazi gun control was already disproved in this thread
- Stringray [repetition of standard Nazi gun control myth]
-- Daylen (the same guy who apparently read the factual rebuttal): "Them libruls are denying the truth!!!!"
--- Irion: [repeats the very same rebuttal]
Aside: Daylen claims laws cannot mandate actions (like, paying taxes) and the SCOTUS does not care unless X% of the population are affected
---- Daylen: "But Jews and Gypsies (and homosexuals and Communists, wonder why those are always left out...) were not armed!!" Which is totally what Irion said, but whatever. Plus, the classic "...or are you a Nazi?"
----- Stingray: Captain Obvious Award for pointing out that Hitler didn't like non-Arayans
----- Irion: "Uhm, you realize they didn't have guns in the first place?"
------ Daylen: "Taking away someone's means of self-defence (i.e. what the Nazis didn't do) is preparation to genocide"
------- Stringray: [random ramblings about self-defence]
Daylen, your discussion style is nothing but a bunch of non-sequiturs and heedless repetitions of already disproven points, mixed with occasional rants against "liberals" and insane claims about supposed politcal workings. This is not the forum for political trolling, so why don't you just go somewhere else?
[What happened before: Somebody brought up the "Nazis banned guns" myth again, Irion disproved it, Daylen even responed to that posting, indicating that he did read it]
Me: Nazi gun control was already disproved in this thread
- Stringray [repetition of standard Nazi gun control myth]
-- Daylen (the same guy who apparently read the factual rebuttal): "Them libruls are denying the truth!!!!"
--- Irion: [repeats the very same rebuttal]
Aside: Daylen claims laws cannot mandate actions (like, paying taxes) and the SCOTUS does not care unless X% of the population are affected
---- Daylen: "But Jews and Gypsies (and homosexuals and Communists, wonder why those are always left out...) were not armed!!" Which is totally what Irion said, but whatever. Plus, the classic "...or are you a Nazi?"
----- Stingray: Captain Obvious Award for pointing out that Hitler didn't like non-Arayans
----- Irion: "Uhm, you realize they didn't have guns in the first place?"
------ Daylen: "Taking away someone's means of self-defence (i.e. what the Nazis didn't do) is preparation to genocide"
------- Stringray: [random ramblings about self-defence]
Daylen, your discussion style is nothing but a bunch of non-sequiturs and heedless repetitions of already disproven points, mixed with occasional rants against "liberals" and insane claims about supposed politcal workings. This is not the forum for political trolling, so why don't you just go somewhere else?
What's being completely ignored is that the philosophical underpinnings of the Second Amendment are to allow a person to defend lifer liberty and property, it applies equally to defending those from the State as it does to defending those from other individuals and from foreign invaders. If anything the population of the United States is now under armed in that the agencies of the state are at an advantage.
QUOTE (Irion @ Nov 13 2011, 07:55 PM)
@Daylen
Ah jesus christ.
This was one of the last laws passed before the wars.
05.17.39 There were 215.000 yews left in germany. (The law was passed 11.11.38 )
So to how many do you think this law applied? (Manly it was just a propaganda reaction to the death of Rath in Paris.)
100? 1000? Regarding the strict restriction on arms before, I do not think many...
@Stingray
How many did comply? What do you think?
And what did it matter?
Jesus christ. Complying... If it would not be that sad, it would be really funny.
Most who had guns, had them taken away by the SS already. (Together with such dangerous things like bread knifes)
Mostly just for the heck of it.
Hard gun laws were passed before Hitler during the time of the "Weimarer Republik" mostly to fight the growin influance of right wing groups...(1928)
Ah jesus christ.
This was one of the last laws passed before the wars.
05.17.39 There were 215.000 yews left in germany. (The law was passed 11.11.38 )
So to how many do you think this law applied? (Manly it was just a propaganda reaction to the death of Rath in Paris.)
100? 1000? Regarding the strict restriction on arms before, I do not think many...
@Stingray
How many did comply? What do you think?
And what did it matter?
Jesus christ. Complying... If it would not be that sad, it would be really funny.
Most who had guns, had them taken away by the SS already. (Together with such dangerous things like bread knifes)
Mostly just for the heck of it.
Hard gun laws were passed before Hitler during the time of the "Weimarer Republik" mostly to fight the growin influance of right wing groups...(1928)
from what i remember my history -lessons in school Jews were living in ghetto's then, with their own police who were somewhat
go between jewis community and german goverment. sometimes that police were also snitch, telling goverment who was dangerous, who owned illegal staff...
as for complying.. not many i think...after kristallnach...
QUOTE (Stingray @ Nov 13 2011, 06:11 PM)
....
self-defence is human right.
and trusting blindly that goverment protect you...
" those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither" (Benjamin Franklin)
Fighting for your freedom and Security is Your Right that no goverment can not, should not be ignore..
self-defence is human right.
and trusting blindly that goverment protect you...
" those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither" (Benjamin Franklin)
Fighting for your freedom and Security is Your Right that no goverment can not, should not be ignore..
Seems I misunderstood you.
@Stingray
This happened after the invasion of poland, so around 1939.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghettos_in_Nazi-occupied_Europe
Let me put it like that:
If the SS can come to your house, steal your stuff an walk away there is not much of a way of not complying.
Frankly: Of those few guns that still existed I guess the nazis did not even think that somebody would turn something in. And frankly I think they did not care about it anyway.
Gun politics were never a real concern for the nazi-Regim (well in the beginning, but only how to bypass them).
The main "weapon" was fear. If you talked about not liking the regime, you did not know if the next guy reported you and you and your family disapeared.
Gunlaws are meant to keep the peace. If you are ok with killing a lot of people, they are just not needed.
This happened after the invasion of poland, so around 1939.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghettos_in_Nazi-occupied_Europe
QUOTE
as for complying.. not many i think...after kristallnach...
Let me put it like that:
If the SS can come to your house, steal your stuff an walk away there is not much of a way of not complying.
Frankly: Of those few guns that still existed I guess the nazis did not even think that somebody would turn something in. And frankly I think they did not care about it anyway.
Gun politics were never a real concern for the nazi-Regim (well in the beginning, but only how to bypass them).
The main "weapon" was fear. If you talked about not liking the regime, you did not know if the next guy reported you and you and your family disapeared.
Gunlaws are meant to keep the peace. If you are ok with killing a lot of people, they are just not needed.
QUOTE (Irion @ Nov 13 2011, 06:55 PM)
@Daylen
Ah jesus christ.
This was one of the last laws passed before the wars.
05.17.39 There were 215.000 yews left in germany. (The law was passed 11.11.38 )
So to how many do you think this law applied? (Manly it was just a propaganda reaction to the death of Rath in Paris.)
100? 1000? Regarding the strict restriction on arms before, I do not think many...
...
Ah jesus christ.
This was one of the last laws passed before the wars.
05.17.39 There were 215.000 yews left in germany. (The law was passed 11.11.38 )
So to how many do you think this law applied? (Manly it was just a propaganda reaction to the death of Rath in Paris.)
100? 1000? Regarding the strict restriction on arms before, I do not think many...
...
I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time following with all the spelling and other errors. Are you contending that there were 215 Jews left in Germany before the war broke out? or 215,000? Either way I don't see how its ok to pass laws against a population, "as long as its small" (paraphrase).
I'm not sure what it matters on who disarms people. What matters is that history has shown unarmed people are the ones who get massacred; their right to live is no longer recognized because their ability and right to defend it is gone.
QUOTE (Irion @ Nov 13 2011, 07:42 PM)
@Stingray
This happened after the invasion of poland, so around 1939.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghettos_in_Nazi-occupied_Europe
Let me put it like that:
If the SS can come to your house, steal your stuff an walk away there is not much of a way of not complying.
Frankly: Of those few guns that still existed I guess the nazis did not even think that somebody would turn something in. And frankly I think they did not care about it anyway.
Gun politics were never a real concern for the nazi-Regim (well in the beginning, but only how to bypass them).
The main "weapon" was fear. If you talked about not liking the regime, you did not know if the next guy reported you and you and your family disapeared.
Gunlaws are meant to keep the peace. If you are ok with killing a lot of people, they are just not needed.
This happened after the invasion of poland, so around 1939.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghettos_in_Nazi-occupied_Europe
Let me put it like that:
If the SS can come to your house, steal your stuff an walk away there is not much of a way of not complying.
Frankly: Of those few guns that still existed I guess the nazis did not even think that somebody would turn something in. And frankly I think they did not care about it anyway.
Gun politics were never a real concern for the nazi-Regim (well in the beginning, but only how to bypass them).
The main "weapon" was fear. If you talked about not liking the regime, you did not know if the next guy reported you and you and your family disapeared.
Gunlaws are meant to keep the peace. If you are ok with killing a lot of people, they are just not needed.
Its far more scary when the SS has all the weapons. Gun laws are SOLD AS a way to keep the peace, propaganda. I'm ok with killing things that threaten my life, is that what you mean by they are not needed? Not only are they not needed they get in the way of self defense.
QUOTE (Irion @ Nov 13 2011, 06:55 PM)
This was one of the last laws passed before the wars.
05.17.39 There were 215.000 yews left in germany. (The law was passed 11.11.38 )
So to how many do you think this law applied? (Manly it was just a propaganda reaction to the death of Rath in Paris.)
05.17.39 There were 215.000 yews left in germany. (The law was passed 11.11.38 )
So to how many do you think this law applied? (Manly it was just a propaganda reaction to the death of Rath in Paris.)
There were "only" ~35,000 arrested [, instead of . in English
] at the beginning of 1938. The numbers skyrocketed after November 11, but until then the majority of Jews did not rot in KZs (although heavily deprived of rights, 1938 saw the second batch of anti-Semite laws like forced name changes and the beginning "Aryanisation" of property).What's also worth noting is that enforcement of the Weimar-era gun control was just as powerless as the rest of the republic.
So quite a few people were armed the whole time, including many Nazi opponents (the communists had their own combat forces). Did it help anyone? Of course not, just like their rifles did not protect Red Army soldiers from Auschwitz. If the SS and Wehrmacht got your house surrounded, a rifle in the closet won't do shit. If the SS and Wehrmacht got your position surrounded, dozens of rifles and military training won't do shit. The idea that "a few good men" can fight back against the concentrated force of a dictatorship out to get them is just ludicrous.
QUOTE (Daylen @ Nov 13 2011, 08:54 PM)
I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time following with all the spelling and other errors. Are you contending that there were 215 Jews left in Germany before the war broke out? or 215,000? Either way I don't see how its ok to pass laws against a population, "as long as its small" (paraphrase).
I'm not sure what it matters on who disarms people. What matters is that history has shown unarmed people are the ones who get massacred; their right to live is no longer recognized because their ability and right to defend it is gone.
I'm not sure what it matters on who disarms people. What matters is that history has shown unarmed people are the ones who get massacred; their right to live is no longer recognized because their ability and right to defend it is gone.
UK: due the action of two shooting insidents, rights to own a firearm is limited to near all population.
restrictions disallow competation shooters to own and practice w/ firearms
they can not have summer olympics (shooting competations)
knives are now favored weapon of youth, (illegal)
restricted to the point where High-class restaurant chef is suspected for crime (he have lot of knives..)
Gangs have a firefights in broad daylight using full-automatic rifles..
UK do not have citizens anymore, they are considered only as subjects...
is UK next to fall?? or does it become Police-state?
And it just gets better (starting a new round of indentation for ease of reading)
Daylen: "Taking away someone's means of self-defence (i.e. what the Nazis didn't do) is preparation to genocide"
- Irion: "There were only a couple of Jews left in Germany when that law was passed"
-- Daylen: "Do you think it's ok to murder just a few people? Also, I still babble about disarming people because I refuse to accept there was no disarmament"
Popcorn, anyone?
Daylen: "Taking away someone's means of self-defence (i.e. what the Nazis didn't do) is preparation to genocide"
- Irion: "There were only a couple of Jews left in Germany when that law was passed"
-- Daylen: "Do you think it's ok to murder just a few people? Also, I still babble about disarming people because I refuse to accept there was no disarmament"
Popcorn, anyone?
QUOTE (Sengir @ Nov 13 2011, 08:05 PM)
There were "only" ~35,000 arrested [, instead of . in English ] at the beginning of 1938. The numbers skyrocketed after November 11, but until then the majority of Jews did not rot in KZs (although heavily deprived of rights, 1938 saw the second batch of anti-Semite laws like forced name changes and the beginning "Aryanisation" of property).
What's also worth noting is that enforcement of the Weimar-era gun control was just as powerless as the rest of the republic.
So quite a few people were armed the whole time, including many Nazi opponents (the communists had their own combat forces). Did it help anyone? Of course not, just like their rifles did not protect Red Army soldiers from Auschwitz. If the SS and Wehrmacht got your house surrounded, a rifle in the closet won't do shit. If the SS and Wehrmacht got your position surrounded, dozens of rifles and military training won't do shit. The idea that "a few good men" can fight back against the concentrated force of a dictatorship out to get them is just ludicrous.
] at the beginning of 1938. The numbers skyrocketed after November 11, but until then the majority of Jews did not rot in KZs (although heavily deprived of rights, 1938 saw the second batch of anti-Semite laws like forced name changes and the beginning "Aryanisation" of property).What's also worth noting is that enforcement of the Weimar-era gun control was just as powerless as the rest of the republic.
So quite a few people were armed the whole time, including many Nazi opponents (the communists had their own combat forces). Did it help anyone? Of course not, just like their rifles did not protect Red Army soldiers from Auschwitz. If the SS and Wehrmacht got your house surrounded, a rifle in the closet won't do shit. If the SS and Wehrmacht got your position surrounded, dozens of rifles and military training won't do shit. The idea that "a few good men" can fight back against the concentrated force of a dictatorship out to get them is just ludicrous.
Its not that "a few good men" can beat a powerful tyrannical government. Its that the choice to try is not yours, but mine, even if doing so is choosing the circumstances of my own death instead of waiting for another to choose. Its that I do have a chance against criminals. Its that if a majority IS armed and does not like the tyranny there is a chance, unarmed there is none (just look at the difference in Libya and Iran). Those who are unarmed are subjects, possessions and/or wards of those whom are armed.
QUOTE (Daylen @ Nov 13 2011, 08:23 PM)
Its not that "a few good men" can beat a powerful tyrannical government.
What matters is that history has shown unarmed people are the ones who get massacred; their right to live is no longer recognized because their ability and right to defend it is gone.
Taking away someones right to an effective means(determined by the individual) of self defense, is evidence that such an authority does not recognize someone's right to continue living.
thus all of the people were not armed, only some, and those that were not armed were systematically exterminated.
Sooo, you don't believe that "a few good men" stand a chance against tyrannical government, but you believe armed people are not the ones who get exterminated.
Vice versa, you believe that disarmament is prelude to extermination, despite claiming to recognize that the presence of firearms does not save one's ass.
I need more popcorn...
@Daylen
Ever seen a 1/1000 person? No, I did not think so either...
Did I say it was "ok"? No, it just did not matter effectively.
They could have banned eating honey for them or something like that. It would not have had a bigger impact.
It is just an example of an other racist law.
But really, that law is so unimportant that you need to search for a list containing it, if you go through literature dealing with the restrictions opposed to jews in germany.
(The only thing worth mentioning about the law is, that hitler used it to arm people true to the nazi regime. To be honest I am not sure they would even have thought of it without the assassination of Rath.)
As a side note: Most searches for "forbidden objects" turned up only bread knifes or the like. Guess how much the SS would have prefered guns...
(This was before the deporation, at that point it did not matter anyway)
There is not one instance were armed minority of citizens had a chance against an army/the police etc.
There are only a lot of examples were this kind of "defence" lead to an army (which was not particually into massacres) to for example crucifying the men and selling the women and children in slavery. (Gazaa, Alaxander the Great)
So the NATO is a few good men...
Yeah, if you are armed with aircraft carriers, you can stand up to a tyrannical government...
But at least we are going shadowrun again. I guess this was the way of argument the corps used to claim their right to heavy artillery.
@Sengir
I did not mean to say they were all arrested. Many fled of course.
QUOTE
Are you contending that there were 215 Jews left in Germany before the war broke out?
Ever seen a 1/1000 person? No, I did not think so either...
QUOTE
Either way I don't see how its ok to pass laws against a population, "as long as its small" (paraphrase).
Did I say it was "ok"? No, it just did not matter effectively.
They could have banned eating honey for them or something like that. It would not have had a bigger impact.
It is just an example of an other racist law.
But really, that law is so unimportant that you need to search for a list containing it, if you go through literature dealing with the restrictions opposed to jews in germany.
(The only thing worth mentioning about the law is, that hitler used it to arm people true to the nazi regime. To be honest I am not sure they would even have thought of it without the assassination of Rath.)
As a side note: Most searches for "forbidden objects" turned up only bread knifes or the like. Guess how much the SS would have prefered guns...
(This was before the deporation, at that point it did not matter anyway)
QUOTE
I'm not sure what it matters on who disarms people. What matters is that history has shown unarmed people are the ones who get massacred; their right to live is no longer recognized because their ability and right to defend it is gone.
There is not one instance were armed minority of citizens had a chance against an army/the police etc.
There are only a lot of examples were this kind of "defence" lead to an army (which was not particually into massacres) to for example crucifying the men and selling the women and children in slavery. (Gazaa, Alaxander the Great)
QUOTE
Its not that "a few good men" can beat a powerful tyrannical government. Its that the choice to try is not yours, but mine, even if doing so is choosing the circumstances of my own death instead of waiting for another to choose. Its that I do have a chance against criminals. Its that if a majority IS armed and does not like the tyranny there is a chance, unarmed there is none (just look at the difference in Libya and Iran). Those who are unarmed are subjects, possessions and/or wards of those whom are armed.
So the NATO is a few good men...
Yeah, if you are armed with aircraft carriers, you can stand up to a tyrannical government...
But at least we are going shadowrun again. I guess this was the way of argument the corps used to claim their right to heavy artillery.
@Sengir
QUOTE
There were "only" ~35,000 arrested [, instead of . in English wink.gif] at the beginning of 1938. The numbers skyrocketed after November 11, but until then the majority of Jews did not rot in KZs (although heavily deprived of rights, 1938 saw the second batch of anti-Semite laws like forced name changes and the beginning "Aryanisation" of property).
I did not mean to say they were all arrested. Many fled of course.
QUOTE (Sengir @ Nov 13 2011, 08:35 PM)
What matters is that history has shown unarmed people are the ones who get massacred; their right to live is no longer recognized because their ability and right to defend it is gone.
Taking away someones right to an effective means(determined by the individual) of self defense, is evidence that such an authority does not recognize someone's right to continue living.
thus all of the people were not armed, only some, and those that were not armed were systematically exterminated.
Sooo, you don't believe that "a few good men" stand a chance against tyrannical government, but you believe armed people are not the ones who get exterminated.
Vice versa, you believe that disarmament is prelude to extermination, despite claiming to recognize that the presence of firearms does not save one's ass.
I need more popcorn...
Taking away someones right to an effective means(determined by the individual) of self defense, is evidence that such an authority does not recognize someone's right to continue living.
thus all of the people were not armed, only some, and those that were not armed were systematically exterminated.
Sooo, you don't believe that "a few good men" stand a chance against tyrannical government, but you believe armed people are not the ones who get exterminated.
Vice versa, you believe that disarmament is prelude to extermination, despite claiming to recognize that the presence of firearms does not save one's ass.
I need more popcorn...
I think you need more than popcorn. You seem to like taking only spinets and attributing it to larger statements from me; otherwise known as taking quotes out of context, such is not the basis of a logical argument, and yes I do know you have no intent upon making a logical argument just throwing the proverbial popcorn as a petulant child would.
..when only outlet is corp-owned press..
modify the feed by adding firepower and number of men..adding term "Terrorist"
Big Guns... FIRE!!!
...by great heroism our forces vanished the enemy..
modify the feed by adding firepower and number of men..adding term "Terrorist"
Big Guns... FIRE!!!
...by great heroism our forces vanished the enemy..
QUOTE (Irion @ Nov 13 2011, 08:40 PM)
@Daylen
...
...
There is not one instance were armed minority of citizens had a chance against an army/the police etc.
There are only a lot of examples were this kind of "defence" lead to an army (which was not particually into massacres) to for example crucifying the men and selling the women and children in slavery. (Gazaa, Alaxander the Great)
...
...
There is not one instance were armed minority of citizens had a chance against an army/the police etc.
There are only a lot of examples were this kind of "defence" lead to an army (which was not particually into massacres) to for example crucifying the men and selling the women and children in slavery. (Gazaa, Alaxander the Great)
Only most countries that have tossed out a government... Maybe you're not aware of how many armed and bloody revolutions there have been. Oh and lets not forget my favorite Scotland held off the English for a long time (too bad about golf) and they used Militias, otherwise known as The People. The Romans didn't keep their empire forever, eventually those nasty Celts kicked them out (yes once Rome had weakened), but the Romans would never have left if the locals were not armed.
QUOTE
So the NATO is a few good men...
Yeah, if you are armed with aircraft carriers, you can stand up to a tyrannical government...
But at least we are going shadowrun again. I guess this was the way of argument the corps used to claim their right to heavy artillery.
Yeah, if you are armed with aircraft carriers, you can stand up to a tyrannical government...
But at least we are going shadowrun again. I guess this was the way of argument the corps used to claim their right to heavy artillery.
NATO and the UN have a good record of showing up when there is armed conflict ALREADY happening. They have the worst record on showing up to stop genocide.
QUOTE (Irion @ Nov 13 2011, 08:40 PM)
I did not mean to say they were all arrested. Many fled of course.
My point was that the Nazis only started to get *really* medieval in November 38, so the number of Jews in May 39 says little about the number of Jews in 38
But half a million or 125,000, your point stands: At the end of 1938, German Jews already had already become marginalized outcasts and as such the question of gun ownership had little significance. And since the law in question didn't even change anything for them, it had ZERO significance.
..by not paying their debt's to UN, US have almost stranglehold to UN's actions... (debt is now 750 million euros)
so there is no much difference relation- wise to Master and Slave...
edit: correction: debt now is 240 million dollars.
so there is no much difference relation- wise to Master and Slave...
edit: correction: debt now is 240 million dollars.
QUOTE (Stingray @ Nov 13 2011, 09:07 PM)
..by not paying their debt's to UN, US have almost stranglehold to UN's actions... (debt is now 750 million euros)
so there is no much difference relation- wise to Master and Slave...
so there is no much difference relation- wise to Master and Slave...
what? The US pays most of the UN bills. And the US is certainly not, nor should be, slave to the UN.
QUOTE (Daylen @ Nov 13 2011, 10:24 PM)
what? The US pays most of the UN bills. And the US is certainly not, nor should be, slave to the UN.
still.. US own UN lot of money, and then can decide to actions of UN..
if u do this we pay 50 mil next year..
US as master UN as slave..
about 6 months ago, senate were arguing of paying for last part of their debt to UN.
reason: US have lost it's seat ot Human right's committee, and would pay it if the could get that seat back..
US have done SOOOOO much for human rights...Irak-prison scandal, denied prisoners right to independent court's ( no legal fighters)
secret prisons for torture..
QUOTE (Sengir @ Nov 13 2011, 08:05 PM)
Of course not, just like their rifles did not protect Red Army soldiers from Auschwitz. If the SS and Wehrmacht got your house surrounded, a rifle in the closet won't do shit. If the SS and Wehrmacht got your position surrounded, dozens of rifles and military training won't do shit. The idea that "a few good men" can fight back against the concentrated force of a dictatorship out to get them is just ludicrous.
Given that those Red Army soldiers had put down their weapons and surrendered trusting in fair treatment according to the Hague Convention, that's perhaps not a very good argument.
I guess the Yugoslav partisans who managed to wrest control of large areas of their land from the German occupation well before the allies decided to support them might also disagree with you.
QUOTE (Daylen @ Nov 13 2011, 09:02 PM)
Only most countries that have tossed out a government... Maybe you're not aware of how many armed and bloody revolutions there have been. Oh and lets not forget my favorite Scotland held off the English for a long time (too bad about golf) and they used Militias, otherwise known as The People. The Romans didn't keep their empire forever, eventually those nasty Celts kicked them out (yes once Rome had weakened), but the Romans would never have left if the locals were not armed.
There is a major differance between taking down a weakend dictator/taking some cornerstones of an broken empire and attacking a dictator on the verge of his power (with no support from the outside).
And the celts? They defeated rom 340 b.C but to the time of the romanempire?
Why the romains left greatbritain is quite difficult. Even the guys who governed it for Rome where not to close to Rome. And when the Visigoths started to threaten their borders as did the anglo and saxons...
So if there would not have been an uprising I guess over short or long they would have lost the ties to rome. (Rome having other problems to deal with)
Their culture might not have been extinct by the saxons and christianity, thats possible though. (Some of the staying behind romans giving them an edge in infrastructure and organisation/military tactics)
QUOTE
NATO and the UN have a good record of showing up when there is armed conflict ALREADY happening. They have the worst record on showing up to stop genocide.
They have a good record in showing up in conflicts which they have interests in.
QUOTE (EKBT81 @ Nov 13 2011, 09:56 PM)
Given that those Red Army soldiers had put down their weapons and surrendered trusting in fair treatment according to the Hague Convention, that's perhaps not a very good argument.
"history has shown unarmed people are the ones who get massacred"
Sorry, nothing about acting in good faith there.
QUOTE
I guess the Yugoslav partisans who managed to wrest control of large areas of their land from the German occupation well before the allies decided to support them might also disagree with you.
I'll just leave you with the WP link to read up the basics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Fron...a_and_civil_war
Tito's partisans were able to fight an underground war quite effectively, but in terms of gaining and holding territory they were as ineffective as any other partisan army. Until the heavy support came, of course, same story as with Libya...
QUOTE (EKBT81 @ Nov 13 2011, 04:56 PM)
Given that those Red Army soldiers had put down their weapons and surrendered trusting in fair treatment according to the Hague Convention, that's perhaps not a very good argument.
"The only good target is a serviced target"?
And we had such a polite thread going until page 10 ... I was really ready to ask if we could get some good karma for how polite everyone was, all around.
There are a few individuals here who already 'know' all the answers, and there is nothing you can say which will convince them otherwise. If someone is greeting you with sarcasm, personal remarks, and belittlement, don't feel like you need to respond; it's no longer a legitimate discussion.
There are a few individuals here who already 'know' all the answers, and there is nothing you can say which will convince them otherwise. If someone is greeting you with sarcasm, personal remarks, and belittlement, don't feel like you need to respond; it's no longer a legitimate discussion.
It's a bad political hotbed of a question...
And, um, I had to go and reference Nazis.
And, um, I had to go and reference Nazis.
QUOTE (Irion @ Nov 13 2011, 10:30 AM)
@So Israel develpped the UZI because their military needed a weapon which was better to conceal than a normal assault rifle?
Or did they inventid to fight in close quaters...
Same thing is said if talking about the weapons carried by SWAT-Teams etc.
Or did they inventid to fight in close quaters...
Same thing is said if talking about the weapons carried by SWAT-Teams etc.
IIRC: It was specifically designed for Close QUarters combat. At which it excelled in the Golan heights and the heavily urbanized areas the Isrealis found themselves in. I think they have replaceit with the M4 carbine (with the 5.56N round over the 9mm Parabellum), and possibly something else.
What is interesting to note, US Troops in Iraq regularly traded out their M-16's for M4's when conducting urban warfare.
QUOTE (Daylen @ Nov 13 2011, 11:23 AM)
Its not that "a few good men" can beat a powerful tyrannical government. Its that the choice to try is not yours, but mine, even if doing so is choosing the circumstances of my own death instead of waiting for another to choose. Its that I do have a chance against criminals. Its that if a majority IS armed and does not like the tyranny there is a chance, unarmed there is none (just look at the difference in Libya and Iran). Those who are unarmed are subjects, possessions and/or wards of those whom are armed.
While I don't disagree with your point using Libya and Iran as examples is not a good idea, Iran is a horrendously complex situation and it's not as thoroughly disarmed as many believe, nor is the regime as unpopular as many in the west believe either. Libya on the other hand is a pretty classic case of an Arab Nationalist state that lost its sponsors and has had a strongman gradually losing his grip for decades so it fits, but again it hurts the case because in this case the the Ghaddafi regime armed everyone in the first place when the cult of personality surrounding the Col. was much stronger.
Tight quarters, you need something that you can swing around without hitting each other or walls and so on.
The Sten Gun (Mostly Sten-IIs) worked great for Canadians in the Italian Campaign of WWII, I remember hearing. Of course, I remember hearing that was because they sometimes got to many and used them as improvised grenades in secured buildings that held a MG Nest and such.
The Sten Gun (Mostly Sten-IIs) worked great for Canadians in the Italian Campaign of WWII, I remember hearing. Of course, I remember hearing that was because they sometimes got to many and used them as improvised grenades in secured buildings that held a MG Nest and such.
QUOTE (Stingray @ Nov 13 2011, 12:28 PM)
still.. US own UN lot of money, and then can decide to actions of UN..
if u do this we pay 50 mil next year..
US as master UN as slave..
about 6 months ago, senate were arguing of paying for last part of their debt to UN.
reason: US have lost it's seat ot Human right's committee, and would pay it if the could get that seat back..
US have done SOOOOO much for human rights...Irak-prison scandal, denied prisoners right to independent court's ( no legal fighters)
secret prisons for torture..
if u do this we pay 50 mil next year..
US as master UN as slave..
about 6 months ago, senate were arguing of paying for last part of their debt to UN.
reason: US have lost it's seat ot Human right's committee, and would pay it if the could get that seat back..
US have done SOOOOO much for human rights...Irak-prison scandal, denied prisoners right to independent court's ( no legal fighters)
secret prisons for torture..
There is significant debate in the US as to whether continued membership in the UN is even of value as it primarily seems to be a body that gathers to pass anti US resolutions on a regular basis. The UN needs the US far more than the US needs the washed up Cold War relic that the UN is. Seriously if it we're not for a handful of very good sub-organizations (UNICEF comes to mind) the UN would be nearly indefensible as a budget line item.
QUOTE (CanRay @ Nov 14 2011, 06:47 PM)
Tight quarters, you need something that you can swing around without hitting each other or walls and so on.
The Sten Gun (Mostly Sten-IIs) worked great for Canadians in the Italian Campaign of WWII, I remember hearing. Of course, I remember hearing that was because they sometimes got to many and used them as improvised grenades in secured buildings that held a MG Nest and such.
The Sten Gun (Mostly Sten-IIs) worked great for Canadians in the Italian Campaign of WWII, I remember hearing. Of course, I remember hearing that was because they sometimes got to many and used them as improvised grenades in secured buildings that held a MG Nest and such.
Sure beats a bolt action, when up close and personal with the enemy. I always thought it interesting that even though Stens and grease guns were so widley popular, the concept that won out in the end (won popular use) was the sturmwehr/m1a1 carbine.
The answer is Range. If the enemy has MP-40s and you have an M1 Carbine, you're still able to shoot and hit him before he can try shooting you. And it was lighter, and you could carry a lot more ammo for it than the M1 Garand (Which was damned popular as well.).
As for the "Assault Rifle" of Germany being so popular, well... It named a whole new style of firearm. A combination of Machine Gun and Rifle in one compact and controllable package compared to the earlier design ideas (Such as the BAR and the FG-42.).
As for the "Assault Rifle" of Germany being so popular, well... It named a whole new style of firearm.
A combination of Machine Gun and Rifle in one compact and controllable package compared to the earlier design ideas (Such as the BAR and the FG-42.).
QUOTE (CanRay @ Nov 14 2011, 06:31 PM)
The answer is Range. If the enemy has MP-40s and you have an M1 Carbine, you're still able to shoot and hit him before he can try shooting you. And it was lighter, and you could carry a lot more ammo for it than the M1 Garand (Which was damned popular as well.).
As for the "Assault Rifle" of Germany being so popular, well... It named a whole new style of firearm. A combination of Machine Gun and Rifle in one compact and controllable package compared to the earlier design ideas (Such as the BAR and the FG-42.).
As for the "Assault Rifle" of Germany being so popular, well... It named a whole new style of firearm.
A combination of Machine Gun and Rifle in one compact and controllable package compared to the earlier design ideas (Such as the BAR and the FG-42.).machine gun, carbine, and intermediate cartridge. The m14 was machine gun and rifle. The intermediate cartridge was an important note.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.