Gun Control is Completely Useless.

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
47,127
8,145
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca
I missed this when it ran a year ago.

For the CBC, not bad.

That's a great video, and nice to see it's gaining popularity in Canada.. maybe someday open carry or concealed carry of hand guns will be allowed..

It's nice to see all those new "Conservative" gun owners being taught how to use a firearm properly.

I think in the USA, there should be more stringent background checks and education about firearms.. but I think Canadian needs to not be so scared of handguns.
 

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
47,127
8,145
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca
How the Nazis Used Gun Control



The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not.

In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.

In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned.

The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community, to render it defenseless so that its “ill-gotten” property could be redistributed as an entitlement to the German “Volk.” The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo.

This took place in the weeks before what became known as the Night of the Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, occurred in November 1938. That the Jews were disarmed before it, minimizing any risk of resistance, is the strongest evidence that the pogrom was planned in advance. An incident was needed to justify unleashing the attack.

That incident would be the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris by a teenage Polish Jew. Hitler directed propaganda minister Josef Goebbels to orchestrate the Night of the Broken Glass. This massive operation, allegedly conducted as a search for weapons, entailed the ransacking of homes and businesses, and the arson of synagogues.

SS chief Heinrich Himmler decreed that 20 years be served in a concentration camp by any Jew possessing a firearm. Rusty revolvers and bayonets from the Great War were confiscated from Jewish veterans who had served with distinction. Twenty thousand Jewish men were thrown into concentration camps, and had to pay ransoms to get released.

The U.S. media covered the above events. And when France fell to Nazi invasion in 1940, the New York Times reported that the French were deprived of rights such as free speech and firearm possession just as the Germans had been. Frenchmen who failed to surrender their firearms within 24 hours were subject to the death penalty.

No wonder that in 1941, just days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Congress reaffirmed Second Amendment rights and prohibited gun registration. In 1968, bills to register guns were debated, with opponents recalling the Nazi experience and supporters denying that the Nazis ever used registration records to confiscate guns. The bills were defeated, as every such proposal has been ever since, including recent “universal background check” bills.

As in Weimar Germany, some well-meaning people today advocate severe restrictions, including bans and registration, on gun ownership by law-abiding persons. Such proponents are in no sense “Nazis,” any more than were the Weimar officials who promoted similar restrictions. And it would be a travesty to compare today’s situation to the horrors of Nazi Germany.

Still, as history teaches, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

source: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365103/how-nazis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook

.................................

This has been played out in history a number of times.. government seize guns, and a tyrannical government gets into power..

People being able to defend themselves against this kind of tyranny is key to a successful government and a true democracy.
 
Last edited:

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
How the Nazis Used Gun Control



The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not.

In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.

In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned.

The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community, to render it defenseless so that its “ill-gotten” property could be redistributed as an entitlement to the German “Volk.” The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo.

This took place in the weeks before what became known as the Night of the Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, occurred in November 1938. That the Jews were disarmed before it, minimizing any risk of resistance, is the strongest evidence that the pogrom was planned in advance. An incident was needed to justify unleashing the attack.

That incident would be the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris by a teenage Polish Jew. Hitler directed propaganda minister Josef Goebbels to orchestrate the Night of the Broken Glass. This massive operation, allegedly conducted as a search for weapons, entailed the ransacking of homes and businesses, and the arson of synagogues.

SS chief Heinrich Himmler decreed that 20 years be served in a concentration camp by any Jew possessing a firearm. Rusty revolvers and bayonets from the Great War were confiscated from Jewish veterans who had served with distinction. Twenty thousand Jewish men were thrown into concentration camps, and had to pay ransoms to get released.

The U.S. media covered the above events. And when France fell to Nazi invasion in 1940, the New York Times reported that the French were deprived of rights such as free speech and firearm possession just as the Germans had been. Frenchmen who failed to surrender their firearms within 24 hours were subject to the death penalty.

No wonder that in 1941, just days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Congress reaffirmed Second Amendment rights and prohibited gun registration. In 1968, bills to register guns were debated, with opponents recalling the Nazi experience and supporters denying that the Nazis ever used registration records to confiscate guns. The bills were defeated, as every such proposal has been ever since, including recent “universal background check” bills.

As in Weimar Germany, some well-meaning people today advocate severe restrictions, including bans and registration, on gun ownership by law-abiding persons. Such proponents are in no sense “Nazis,” any more than were the Weimar officials who promoted similar restrictions. And it would be a travesty to compare today’s situation to the horrors of Nazi Germany.

Still, as history teaches, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

source: How the Nazis Used Gun Control | National Review Online

.................................

This has been played out in history a number of times.. government seize guns, and a tyrannical government gets into power..

People being able to defend themselves against this kind of tyranny is key to a successful government and a true democracy.

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"
 

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
47,127
8,145
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca
Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"

Nah just pointing out facts...

It's not just the Nazi's that used Gun Restrictions to limit the people from fighting back, USSR and many other regimes.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v2q0lGhc-8
 

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
Newtown Families File Suit Against AR-15 Manufacturer and Seller | TheBlaze.com

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — The families of nine of the 26 people killed and a teacher injured two years ago at the Sandy Hook Elementary School filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer, distributor and seller of the rifle used in the shooting.

The negligence and wrongful death lawsuit, filed Monday in Bridgeport Superior Court, asserts that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle should not have been made publicly available because it is a military weapon unsuited for hunting or home defense.

I think it is safe to say that the Sandy Hook killings were an 'off label' use of the AR-15. Bushmaster has never manufactured or sold rifles for such a despicable use.


Too bad that the armed citizen didn't practise more often at the shooting range. That was some pretty close range shooting that he failed miserably at.
 

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
47,127
8,145
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca
Newtown Families File Suit Against AR-15 Manufacturer and Seller | TheBlaze.com

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — The families of nine of the 26 people killed and a teacher injured two years ago at the Sandy Hook Elementary School filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer, distributor and seller of the rifle used in the shooting.

The negligence and wrongful death lawsuit, filed Monday in Bridgeport Superior Court, asserts that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle should not have been made publicly available because it is a military weapon unsuited for hunting or home defense.

I think it is safe to say that the Sandy Hook killings were an 'off label' use of the AR-15. Bushmaster has never manufactured or sold rifles for such a despicable use.

Won't get a dime..

That takes a special kind of stupid to think the gun manufacturer is responsible for a mentally ill person taking their product and killing people..

So next they will be suing Honda, Toyota, GM, Ford because a drunk guy drove their product into an oncoming car and killed a family of six.

So where does the Stupid end..
 

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
Their claim is false from the very first sentence. The AR-15 was never designed for or used by the military. The M16 and the M4 were designed for the military. Those weapons are select fire, battlefield, assault weapons. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle and doesn’t have a select fire function. Progressives and just generally ignorant people call the AR-15 an assault rifle, but the stupidity of those people doesn’t make it true. The AR-15 was specifically designed for civilians. They were purposely designed to be compliant with federal firearms regulations They are not just name changes.
 

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
47,127
8,145
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca
Their claim is false from the very first sentence. The AR-15 was never designed for or used by the military. The M16 and the M4 were designed for the military. Those weapons are select fire, battlefield, assault weapons. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle and doesn’t have a select fire function. Progressives and just generally ignorant people call the AR-15 an assault rifle, but the stupidity of those people doesn’t make it true. The AR-15 was specifically designed for civilians. They were purposely designed to be compliant with federal firearms regulations They are not just name changes.

OK RabidPatriot :roll:

RabidPatriot | TheBlaze.com

But you forgot the rest of the quote:

And anyone that doubts their effectiveness as a home defense weapon just needs to try and break into my house and I will give an expert demonstration.
 

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
Well, the difference between a car driven by a drunk and a gun in the hands of a nutcase IS....drum roll please.....wait for it.....A car is to get from here to there, a gun is the same except t it is meant to transport one of the living to one of the dead!!


For those who cannot tell the difference are advised to shoot their car motor and see which one survives, the gun or the car. Be careful of the ricochet though, finding out the difference could be painful or fatal.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Well, the difference between a car driven by a drunk and a gun in the hands of a nutcase IS....drum roll please.....wait for it.....A car is to get from here to there, a gun is the same except t it is meant to transport one of the living to one of the dead!!


For those who cannot tell the difference are advised to shoot their car motor and see which one survives, the gun or the car. Be careful of the ricochet though, finding out the difference could be painful or fatal.


Are you feeling OK tonight, Bluebyrd? I'm beginning to get a little concerned about you!:)
 

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
Are you feeling OK tonight, Bluebyrd? I'm beginning to get a little concerned about you!:)
Oh, I'm fine....... after all, I am one of the sane majority. Just for the heck of it, Google and see what happened to cigarette companies who tried to sell dangerous items to the public and got sued. It took awhile and they are still hanging in there but nicely controlled. I wouldn't invest in stocks of either cigarettes or gun companies.
 

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
47,127
8,145
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca
Well, the difference between a car driven by a drunk and a gun in the hands of a nutcase IS....drum roll please.....wait for it.....A car is to get from here to there, a gun is the same except t it is meant to transport one of the living to one of the dead!!

...and a Car in the hands of a drunk driver does the same.

Deaths caused by alcohol this year: 2,394,650

Alcohol Statistics - Worldometers

Also, a gun can be used for sport, such as the Olympics. I know the ultra left that couldn't hit the side of a barn if given the opportunity are afraid of gun owners, many even intimidated.
 

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
...and a Car in the hands of a drunk driver does the same.

Deaths caused by alcohol this year: 2,394,650

Alcohol Statistics - Worldometers

Also, a gun can be used for sport, such as the Olympics. I know the ultra left that couldn't hit the side of a barn if given the opportunity are afraid of gun owners, many even intimidated.
Well let's see. Humans have been distilling alcohol since before Christ was born.....Guns, cars, nor cigarettes have been. Cigarettes, cars were never intended as killing weapons. Cars are also used in "Sports" in many countries and in many towns. What relevance does this have??


As far as I can see, guns are still the only article that's sole purpose is to kill the living. Because some sports are to see which human can kill the best, doesn't change it's status. I do not deny that a country needs to arm its forces in event of war or police forces are better with them. The fact is many police know anyone can be carrying a gun, and this puts many people at risk including the police themselves. They use their guns when they feel threatened, even children with toy guns are shot. This must change in certain countries. The criminals are winning, because the rules favour them over the law enforcement.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Oh, I'm fine....... after all, I am one of the sane majority. Just for the heck of it, Google and see what happened to cigarette companies who tried to sell dangerous items to the public and got sued. It took awhile and they are still hanging in there but nicely controlled. I wouldn't invest in stocks of either cigarettes or gun companies.

You do not have a basic constitutional right to either cars or cigarettes.....you do have a right to keep arms.

BTW, this lawsuit has absolutely no chance of winning. The lawyers involved should all be horsewhipped, as they are taking money to pursue a suit they know very well is hopeless.

The wrong is done by a third party which the manufacturer has absolutely no control over, and the manufacturer's wares performed exactly as designed and intended.

Lawsuit FAIL.