Reply With Quote
...
Does he fear the government like you do?
...
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-16-2013 at 02:16 PM.
it was just a joke.
you really are a princess.
your mindless appeals to authority and and weak bull got old a long time ago. if you dislike the response it's getting, step up your game.
he doesn't have to. the princess is en led.
at least try to express the viewpoints you're pretending to rely on. not being able to is just pitiful.
Maybe SnC can help CC expound on how the Adams biography relates to the thread?
Thanks bud. I got that part. I was wondering why a pretty progressive liberal would list a bunch of liberal socialists and include my sn in on attacking private citizens. I guess I should have realized that there was no real idea behind it, except being able to compound words to create a sentence. I was proven correct when you second his award winning thesis. To him and you, his assistant professor, I say - thank you.
The federalist and anti-federalist papers were writings primarily by those who were addressing ideas and concerns to each other as how to craft the laws of our lands. They offer insight to the intended and debated purpose. Courts will actually use these do ents at times when considering cons utional cases.
Well, I did produce a list of dictators (mostly military) that took over when access to guns for the civilian population was not an issue, which I think presented my point quite clearly.Thanks bud. I got that part. I was wondering why a pretty progressive liberal would list a bunch of liberal socialists and include my sn in on attacking private citizens. I guess I should have realized that there was no real idea behind it, except being able to compound words to create a sentence. I was proven correct when you second his award winning thesis. To him and you, his assistant professor, I say - thank you.
On the other hand some dude made this claim and never backed it up...
Oh, and Pinochet, Franco and a few others were as right-wing conservatives as they come...
I didn't respond because I didn't believe your well written list. It included Hitler. That's when you lost your credibility.
I guess you'd have to explain what a "right-wing" or "conservative" is.
Oh, and Pinochet, Franco and a few others were as right-wing conservatives as they come...
I would just appreciate it if you left my sn out of your illogical, generalized bull . It's pretty offensive for you to include me into a comment about killing and occupying my countrymen. Just for some blow off comment with no real merit. Although sometimes you play the asinine game on this forum, you're better than that.
Last edited by spursncowboys; 01-16-2013 at 05:39 PM.
Hitler disarmed citizens they later rounded up
Stalin disarmed citizens they later rounded up
Mussolini did too
Santa Anna....Seriously?? I'm surprised you didn't include Alexander the Great
Bet that was a cruel summer.
Hitler actually softened gun control measures in Germany, it was much more restrictive during the Weimar republic. That jews were forbidden from having guns have nothing to do with your average germans.
Here, educate yourself a little bit:
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop..._about_hitler/
What "right-wing" and "conservative" always meant in the political context: support for social hierarchy, anti-communism, strong nationalism, government support for religion, etc.
There's been left and right dictators throughout history. The fact is you need an army on your side, and that's why a good chunk of them come directly from military background or were military themselves.
That doesn't mean that all military are whack or the military profession is bad or anything like that.
I disagree there was anything illogical or generalized there. I used your nick as I could've used any other service member here. It wasn't directed at you personally. I'll use their nick next time.
Because you say so?
We're talking history. Didn't know I had to stick to some arbitrary cutoff date.
I was going to but realized how many of your dictators on your list did not match your description. With Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”
With Stalin: ?“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.
It's not arbitrary or a cutoff date. It's common sense.We're talking history. Didn't know I had to stick to some arbitrary cutoff date.
You two are so feminine that it causes tingling in my nether regions. Something about that vulnerability you exude across the forum, and CD is just a drip pan. He's your +1.
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop..._about_hitler/
“As for Stalin,” Bartov continued, “the very idea of either gun control or the freedom to bear arms would have been absurd to him. His regime used violence on a vast scale, provided arms to thugs of all descriptions, and stripped not guns but any human image from those it declared to be its enemies. And then, when it needed them, as in WWII, it took millions of men out of the Gulags, trained and armed them and sent them to fight Hitler, only to send back the few survivors into the camps if they uttered any criticism of the regime.”
Hitler appreciated gun control is the understatement of the year.
Hitler also understood the nation was at war, and he couldn't control weapons on the general population. Again, no counter-argument to that piece?
He can't have read it if he's still going on like this.
I'm not reading your article completely. I don't see why I was supposed to counter this argument. One thing I did notice was that the author starts the idea of gun control from when Hitler took over. If you agree with this article, then you need to do a little research on the gun laws in germany before the nazi's 1928 power grab law.
All I would like from you, is that you not use my sn like you did. That's it. I will debate you with my views but this is getting ridiculous and to "win" you are turning into CD. For God's sake, we are debating Nazi gun laws.
Too long?
No pictures to help me with my words.
Too long?
I've been practicing my words....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
