Guns, Guns Guns

smr wrote:History Lesson: Hitler seized the weapons in Germany...need I belabor a point. Stalin...the purges and the starvation of millions of farmers.

As has already been established earlier in the thread, that is a complete LIE.

The nazis actually made it EASIER to have guns.

Rifles and shotguns were completely DEREGULATED in 1938.
Gun permits were increased from 1 year to 3 years.
And MORE people became completely exempt from the regulations.
Legal age to own guns were LOWERED from 20 to 18.

And Stalin, well the history writings about that is a bit too close to faerytales for me to correct you on that, it would require pages of text just to begin.

Imaginos1892 wrote:All right, that's it. I have had enough of you.

This may come as a terrible shock, but you don't know everything. It is entirely possible for intelligent and well-informed people to have opinions that are different from yours. Calling everybody who disagrees with you a bunch of idiots is rude and childish, and makes you look extremely insecure.

I don't care what age you are, you have a lot of growing up to do.

No, i´m not dissing "everybody who disagrees" whatever, i´m calling you on a bunch of delusions and the little fact that you fail basic logic.

Like i said, i didn´t really expect you or Pz to get it. Reality contradicts your indoctrination, indoctrination wins by default.

I wouldn´t be surprised if you didn´t even bother to even TRY to understand what i actually wrote.

I have no problems with other people having opinions, have fun, be convinced that the moon is really a big cheese if you want to.
But once you say that is a fact, then i will oppose, end of story.


Simple fact, if you want to have rights, you must have someone to enforce those rights for you, or they´re just a pipedream. If you can´t comprehend that, well like i said, i don´t expect you to.
Your much vaunted constitution has zero value if you do not have a nation with a government to enforce it.

Of course you must have someone to enforce rights.

http://www.wyohistory.org/essays/johnson-county-war

So in the Johnson County war who were the people, organizations or governments enforcing those rights?

T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:Of course you must have someone to enforce rights.

http://www.wyohistory.org/essays/johnson-county-war

So in the Johnson County war who were the people, organizations or governments enforcing those rights?

T2M

Thanks for that, most interesting story. Looks to me at the time it was one step from anarchy, so they followed the golden rule. "He who has the gold makes the rules".

Tenshinai wrote:
snip

Those basic laws sets up a frame that can provide rights, or provide rights directly.
It also provides the groundwork for government of the same country.

If you want those rights, then you can have them only if you have a declaration of rights, as part of the above, but if you reject government, then there´s none to enforce that declaration of rights, and the paper is about as valuable as toilet paper with grafiti on it.

snip

A national declaration of rights is just so much garbage if you do not have a national government or administration or SOMETHING whatever that is capable of making it stick.

IIRC, I read that the USSR, under Stalin, et. al. had a good constitution. The enforcement of it nyeh Can anyone confirm or correct this?

Note that the US constitution was set up so that the different powers, (including the states as a power) were to enforce it on each other. Which is what is currently in trouble, talk about statists The ultimate enforcer was to be the people themselves, hence the right to bear arms. Historically, nations would after a time become complacent, and fall under the control of a small group, no matter how well they stared.

[quote="Daryl"
Thanks for that, most interesting story. Looks to me at the time it was one step from anarchy, so they followed the golden rule. "He who has the gold makes the rules".[/quote]

Pretty much the only thing stopping it from anarchy was capable, law abiding citizens following the law. Which our Federal and the State government did not in this instance.

I cheated spent 5 hours in the county museum. I read some of those newspapers and diaries.

http://www.jimgatchell.com/

Plus had a wonderful statue out front ... Nate Champion. How cool of a name is that for a gun fighting citizen his and other citizens rights.

Have fun,
T2M

DDHvi, actually that would be the right to vote, the right to run for office, not the right to bear arms.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

thinkstoomuch wrote:Of course you must have someone to enforce rights.

http://www.wyohistory.org/essays/johnson-county-war

So in the Johnson County war who were the people, organizations or governments enforcing those rights?

T2M

The thing is that the original argument was that arms were necessary to defend against an oppressive government, not against other private actors when the government is failing to maintain order. So it's a get example of the need to bear arms - at least during that time period, whether it still applies now that the state is stronger is another question - but does not apply to that original assertion.

That's just sophistry. If government fails for whatever reason, individuals are left with the ultimate responsibility to set things as right as they may be set. That is true when government fails to remain within legal limits and becomes tyrannical or fails to meet its obligations either because of corruption or incompetence.

Again, government in the US are simply agents of the sovereign citizens.

Eyal wrote:

thinkstoomuch wrote:Of course you must have someone to enforce rights.

http://www.wyohistory.org/essays/johnson-county-war

So in the Johnson County war who were the people, organizations or governments enforcing those rights?

T2M

The thing is that the original argument was that arms were necessary to defend against an oppressive government, not against other private actors when the government is failing to maintain order. So it's a get example of the need to bear arms - at least during that time period, whether it still applies now that the state is stronger is another question - but does not apply to that original assertion.

DDHvi wrote:
IIRC, I read that the USSR, under Stalin, et. al. had a good constitution. The enforcement of it nyeh Can anyone confirm or correct this?

Actually, it was the fact that they nearly always DID act within the letter of the laws that was bad.

The new laws adopted were quite well written from what i´ve seen, they were however written not to be followed unthinkingly.

DDHvi wrote:Note that the US constitution was set up so that the different powers, (including the states as a power) were to enforce it on each other.

Nice theory, doesn´t really work well when personal power is abused to interfere with official power.

And if you note what i said above, i can mention that the problem USA has, is that people just follow orders.
They don´t think about whether the orders are good, bad or outright illegal.

DDHvi wrote:Which is what is currently in trouble, talk about statists The ultimate enforcer was to be the people themselves, hence the right to bear arms. Historically, nations would after a time become complacent, and fall under the control of a small group, no matter how well they stared.

The right to bear arms for MILITIAS was to maintain independence from outside threats.
Like say, the British, who at the time had a pretty darn good claim on the place.

The right to vote and run for office is the people´s ultimate check on power.