Skip to main content

View Diary: Attempted assassination of Giffords and gun control (286 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Killjoy. n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, phrogge prince

    Republicans are terrorists.

    by Bush Bites on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 08:19:39 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Better than killing innocents. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, Bush Bites, Matt Z, jan4insight

      We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

      by twigg on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 08:20:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No worries. (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rabel, semiot, Tonedevil, twigg, Matt Z, jan4insight

        It was snark.

        You can't change the law because they use 30-round magazines in a competition? Because you'll ruin a fuckin' game?

        Man....

        Republicans are terrorists.

        by Bush Bites on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 08:26:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Obviously (0+ / 0-)

        Gun control is highly effective; just ask Adolf Hitler how he found [disarmed; the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto were quite different] Jews.  Y'all are playing with fire by advocating British-style total disarmament; an attempted seizure of arms would spark another revolution, and, though I disagree with most of the posters here [obviously], I hardly wish that violence occur.  Incidentally, don't delude yourselves into thinking that such a contest would be immediately resolved in the US's favor; while I'm not disposed to write a treatise upon guerrilla tactics, a quick comparison of BluFor and RedFor casualties in Vietnam, along with the general competence in marksmanship exhibited by those of my persuasion (which compares quite favorably to that of the average US soldier, let me assure you), suffices to demonstrate that any conflict would entail DEPLORABLE loss of life.  Ain't y'all generally desirous of peace, not the aggressive wars of Bush (41 and 43) fame?

        I ain't no neocon; rather, I'm an anarchocapitalist libertarian.

        by ResistSocialism on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 11:35:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gun control is why (0+ / 0-)

          per capita murder rates in Western Europe are ten times what they are in the US.

          On a not sarcastic note (the following oversimplifies and omits details): After the Great War, in 1919 and 1920, there were very strong gun control laws in Germany. Essentiall, these were imposed as part of the end of the war, and effectively prevented ordinary Germans from owning firearms. In 1928 the Weimar government relaxed those controls, although it maintained strict licensing requirements for owning and carrying a gun. In 1938, when Nazi repression of the Jews was already highly developed both legally and in practice, the Nazis passed a law, which basically further liberalized gun ownership, except for Jews, for whom it prohibited gun ownership.

          A brief summary is that: the relaxing of gun controls coincided with the rise of nazi brutality in the street.

          •  Do you actually believe (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ResistSocialism

            that drivel?

            We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

            by twigg on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 04:55:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  what's the drivel? (0+ / 0-)

              Murder rates in Western Europe are much lower than in the US. The main reason is because guns are less easily available.

              The nazis were as motivated by revenging Versailles as by anything, and their rise went hand in hand with a systematic liberalization of the context for violence, that is with legal facilitation of possession of the means to do violence.

              It's not that the Jews were disarmed so much as that those who wished to kill them were armed. The distinction is more than merely semantic.

              It is a problem in the US that those inclined to violence so easily obtain the means to effect it.

          •  Technically, Germans were Allowed by Hitler (0+ / 0-)

            only hunting / 'sporting' rifles and handguns (sound familiar?), though, besides submachineguns, there were few affordable but prohibited weapons on the market (mainly light machineguns).  The main problem in Germany was the fact that the populace was generally disposed to support Hitler, though not necessarily out of hatred for the Jews (though the relative complicity of German civilians in the Holocaust merits its own thread and is a subject upon which I am not well-informed).  Note also that Nazi brutality in the streets was technically common long before 1938.  Far more importantly, we see that a targeted group (Jews:productive Americans?) is disarmed forcibly by the State, whilst a somewhat-hostile [and largely conscripted] populace is not, whether due to liberalized gun ownership laws or the fact that so many German men were in the military at this point.  Is it unreasonable for those of my persuasion to fear that disarmament would be only for us, especially because the military and overreaching federal law enforcement departments are not being concurrently disarmed (or even better regulated)?

            I ain't no neocon; rather, I'm an anarchocapitalist libertarian.

            by ResistSocialism on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 12:13:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (130)
  • Community (62)
  • Elections (39)
  • 2016 (37)
  • Environment (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (35)
  • Culture (30)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Media (29)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Education (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Spam (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Texas (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site