I’m sorry to hear about your great-grandfather, but your one example doesn’t address nor change what I wrote.
It is. The US government should not be summarily executing a single person. And, I’d argue it should not be executing ANYONE ever, regardless of due process and so on.
1 Like
It makes a huge difference, in that certain gun-rights enthusiasts (such as the author linked by @anon50325502) offer the Nazi gun-law event as a practical example of the importance of gun rights; ie, that gun ownership has a utilitarian value as a bulwark against governmental tyranny.
One need look no farther than the author you linked to find that some consider it a fact, not speculation.
Has it? We (our govt) is now forcibly separating infants and toddlers from their parents at the border, the justification being that it will ‘deter’ people from coming here. Is this any less immoral than interring Japanese-Americans? Do we (present-day Americans) really have a legit claim to the moral high-ground over Americans circa 1942?
It’s tyranny that should be defended against/stopped, but it’s not a very likely scenario.
Understood, but I personally don’t believe in rights remaining rights only if the aggrieved still have power. I mean, I do believe those jews continued to have the right to freely move about, though any attempt to do so may have been futile.I would not say their inability to do so is evidence that jews don’t have that right.
Yes, but it’s an anecdote that illustrates a wider point. Jews were over represented in both the German and Austrian officer corps, not to mention NCOs in WW1, so physical courage wasn’t an issue.
Why didn’t they fight? Hitler came to power in 1933. The law you listed was from 1938.
Principles are tested in “not very likely” scenarios when you apply them to repulsive individuals or groups.
So if I understand you correctly, your willingness to defend against tyranny is conditional? No US citizens that are ISIS members, no MS13 murderers. So stands to reason that it’s also conditional for a significant portion of US gun owners, right?
And here’s an opening for tyranny - by starting from the almost universally reviled. And all those stockpiled guns didn’t help.
I guess a decade isn’t that bad of a timeline to reign in stealing Americans rights. Better than Germany.
All unarmed challenges right?
Either the rights are untouchable to us citizens or they’re not.
They’re clearly not untouchable as shown by the vast majority of American history. Saying the Holocaust was worse (while true imo) doesn’t really have an impact on whether these lightswitch rights really are just that.
Taking that a step further and defending the 2A with some magical moment that has zero historical backing doesn’t make sense to me
Okay, I will concede it is a matter of speculation.
No, I guess it hasn’t changed all that much. We abort the unborn in the name of women’s right and we separate parents from the children when they break the law. The oppressed groups are just different.
When did I bring up courage? I don’t think it has anything to do with it. The German Jews obviously didn’t fathom their government was going to irradicate them or I doubt they would have just let it happen.
They aren’t tested via unlikely hypotheticals.
Sure, I’m not going to risk dying and leaving my family for criminals. Let me know when US police officers are killing MS-13 gang-members like they do in Brazil and I’ll reconsider.
Okay, well I’m done with this weird ass rabbit hole.
I take everything back. Just saw a dude carrying a purse. Just take the guns.
2 Likes
So if the govt were to make owning a firearm illegal, does this statement stand up?
1 Like
You trying to get me on some kind of list…
1 Like
Touche 
But moreso trying to find the line. It’s already useless without massive agreement, even more useless when it can’t even be defined
I don’t often agree with Erick Erickson, but I thought he was spot-on here, and suspect his position might find traction with you as well. (In case you’re not familiar with him, he’s a staunchly anti-abortion religious conservative):
At the end of the day, I believe firearms offered an opportunity to check centralized power, but every day since it’s inception we willingly give the fed more and more say in our lives weakening that check.
I have no idea what would cause, if anything, gun owners to take to the streets. Owning firearms might be a moot point in 2018. Wtf do I know.
I do think it’s wrong to separate parents from their children. I would just turn the qhole family around, bit I’m not in charge.
But, it’s not like we dont also do this to US parents that break the law.
I thought by now Mrs Kiplitz in home ect would be well trained & take out the bad guys like Bruce Willis in Die hard… I guess there goes plan A meh… damn video games & rap…when will folks learn
We separate children from their (criminal) US parents out of necessity, not as a means to ‘deter’ behavior (which is what we’re doing at the border).
I also believe firearms offerED a check over centralized power. Back when arms had roughly similar relative value. Those days are gone. Like 8 generations gone.
So how is it such a CONSTANT talking point? You yourself have used it dozens of times just that I’ve personally read alone. How do you expect absolutely anyone to take your statement seriously if, not only do you not know what it means to you, but even if you did, it would be useless without very high level agreement from your fellow Americans?
To be honest, I personally don’t have a line drawn in the sand for when we would need an uprising but the option should always be there to defend ourselves if said situation should happen. That is the real point. We have it pretty good in the U.S. and it would take quite a situation for us to give up our comfortable lives to have an uprising against the government.
I don’t really see individual situations as a need for an uprising. I think that’s what protests are for and voting people out of office. Most people just want to live their lives and not be bothered. And yes, we may let the government over step their boundaries but I don’t see that as a reason to say that it doesn’t matter if we have guns or not then.
Also, Americans as a whole probably aren’t smart enough to see when their rights are being trampled on IE, patriot act, which was used as a guise for making us safer.
All that being said, I feel it’s extremely difficult to have a totalitarian government in the US as we have 3 branches of government with completely different powers and a constitution that mostly protects us from the government taking our rights.
1 Like