930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: on May 24, 2005, 03:22:00 pm
-
<img src="http://www.bizbag.com/Old%20ads/NRA%20jpg.JPG" alt=" - " />
All the young black people I see think that all they can be is singers and dancers and musicians and football players and sportsmen. Well, I say they're wrong. There's something else in store for them if they want it.
They can collect guns. I've got eighty or more guns in my collection, and my bodyguards, the Fruit of Islam, carry many more guns. I look at them sometimes and say to myself, 'Where'd these guns come from? Who used these guns before we liberated them into the service of Allah? What could Allah have meant when he put these guns in our hands?'
Think about the great men of history, the men who have led their nations. All of them collected guns. Think about Hitler. He was a good man, and he had his guns. Hitler was a very great man. He wasn't great for me as a black person, but he was a great German. And the Germans made great guns.
That's why I belong to the NRA. I want guns to remain a part of American life, to be used safely and legally. I want guns to remain a real solution to solving tough crimes, crimes that we feel are punishable by death.
One day, we will punish you with death. And we'll be proud to say ...
I'm the NRA.
-
there is no historical record that hitler was a gun collector or enthusiast of any kind. but he was a very strong advocate of gun control. one of the first things that hitler did was take the guns away.
-
Originally posted by J'Mal:
one of the first things that hitler did was take the guns away.
ugh.
i hate when this whole hitler gun control thing is brought up ... the subtle implication that the necessary next step from sensible gun control is fascism (which is used constantly by the NRA) really frustrates me
-
Typical stupid Republican arguments that are boiled down to there most simple and therefore completely miss the point:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html)
Its easy to attract more dumb people who aren't paying attention. That is how the nazi's got into power, not gun control.
-
no, the hitler thing was brought up in the original post.
ugh, i hate it when advocates of individual rights are lumped in with a monster who worked very hard to obliterate those rights, the not very subtle implication being that if you support the right to keep and bear arms, you're hitler.
the fact is, gun control is necessary for fascism and other forms of totalitarian oppression, as gun ownership by the civilian population is incompatible with totalitarian oppression.
the original post has nothing to do with "common sense gun control." it is just a slur on people who advocate for gun rights.
-
Originally posted by J'Mal:
, as gun ownership by the civilian population is incompatible with totalitarian oppression.
Absolute and utter nonsense.
Are you the most gullible and naive person, ever?
-
Der grö�te Unsinn, den man in den besetzen Ostgebieten machen könnte, sei der, den unterworfenen Völkern Waffen zu geben. Die Geschichte lehre, da� alle Herrenvölker untergegangen seien, nachdem sie den von ihnen unterworfenen Volkern Waffen bewilligt hatten.
[The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.]
-- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)
A related article: "Nazi Firearms Laws and the Disarming of the German Jews", by Stephen Halbroook:
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf)
-
Originally posted by J'Mal:
ugh, i hate it when advocates of individual rights are lumped in with a monster who worked very hard to obliterate those rights, the not very subtle implication being that if you support the right to keep and bear arms, you're hitler.
i never implied that, and, frankly, as a jew i despise all political appropriations of nazi imagery, from org's like moveon and the NRA
Originally posted by J'Mal:
the fact is, gun control is necessary for fascism and other forms of totalitarian oppression, as gun ownership by the civilian population is incompatible with totalitarian oppression.
perhaps, but the NRA uses the nazi angle to specifically imply that gun control leads directly to totalitarianism and facism ... which, by simply taking a virtual tour of the world's gun laws, is easily proven patently untrue
-
So how about Afghanistan and Iraq for examples? No one had guns there and those regimes were not oppressive?
Hell, your civil liberties are being eroded everyday. An American citizen was held indefinitely without trial just recently.
I already posted that gun control had no impact on Hitlers rise and hold over power, that is a myth.
-
Originally posted by Miss MArKiE?:
Hell, your civil liberties are being eroded everyday. An American citizen was held indefinitely without trial just recently.
i'm not trying to be reactionary and abrasive here (i swear!)
i've heard the new NRA prez quoted as saying something to the effect that the first mission of the NRA is to protect and uphold the bill of rights.
so why do second amendment supporters (NRA, GOA, etc) have such hatred for first amendment supporters (ACLU)?
-
I dont have a good grasp of the acronyms, but I hate historical facts being distorted to fulfil an agenda.
But does the constitution not say ( to paraphrase) that it should not be set in stone and should be modified to fit the times?
-
Iraq seems to have a lot of guns, pre-US invasion guns. They were pretty ruthlessly oppressed.
-
Originally posted by J'Mal:
...the original post has nothing to do with "common sense gun control." it is just a slur on people
Is it? I copied it word-for-word from an old issue of The National Lampoon magazine. It was a parody of a then-current NRA ad campaign.
-
however, the first thing that hitler did do was abolish trade unions....
-
I <img src="http://www.lucyworks.com/mainpage/heart.gif" alt=" - " /> Ellis!
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
however, the first thing that hitler did do was abolish trade unions....
did he?
http://www.ety.com/HRP/booksonline/mk/mkv2chap12.htm (http://www.ety.com/HRP/booksonline/mk/mkv2chap12.htm)
"In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence will be enormously reinforced thereby."
-
Hitler was gay.
-
Originally posted by Miss MArKiE?:
I <img src="http://www.lucyworks.com/mainpage/heart.gif" alt=" - " /> Ellis!
<img src="http://sctv.org/characters/lola/lola.jpg" alt=" - " />
"I wanna bear your children!"
<img src="http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/lovestory.gif" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by Miss MArKiE?:
But does the constitution not say ( to paraphrase) that it should not be set in stone and should be modified to fit the times?
No, crap, it says absolutely no such thing. It says it may be amended by a two thirds vote in each house and ratification of 3/4 of the states, or if there is a new constitutional convention.
If the constitution means whatever you want it to mean, then it doesn't mean anything. The whole point of having a written constitution is that you protect certain core principles and ideals from the popular whims of the day, even, and especially, when doing so protects unpopular people and minorities from the will of the mob.
-------
Saddam's people in Iraq had guns, so did his army. Ordinary people did not. Hence the mass graves.
Afghanistan is an even better example. It's rarely had anything resembling a unified government. Popular uprisings helped defeat the soviet invasion as well as the taliban later on.
------
Second Amendment supporters don't tend to have hatred of First Amendment supporters.
People generally fall into two categories: those who support the bill of rights and individual freedoms generally, and those who pick and choose and twist what they like depending on which team they're cheering for.
The ACLU is firmly in the second camp. They do some admirable things, but they are hypocritical and partisan in many ways.
NRA and GOA are single-issue groups. They take no positions on non-firearms related issues, except to the extent those other issues impact their ability to function and promote their gun cause. Sometimes, this means they are better friends of the First Amendment than certain so-called "liberal" groups.
-
<img src="http://www.ginosprio.com/_images/Mark+E+Smith_bySprio.jpg" alt=" - " />
the nwra
-
Originally posted by Miss MArKiE?:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
however, the first thing that hitler did do was abolish trade unions....
did he?
http://www.ety.com/HRP/booksonline/mk/mkv2chap12.htm (http://www.ety.com/HRP/booksonline/mk/mkv2chap12.htm)
"In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence will be enormously reinforced thereby." [/b]
the site is blocked at work, so i can't see the year he said it. abolished may be the wrong phrasing, but he did send all of the leaders to concentration camps and took over the opperation of the unions, which defeated the point
-
Originally posted by Miss MArKiE?:
Typical stupid Republican arguments that are boiled down to there most simple and therefore completely miss the point:
Its easy to attract more dumb people who aren't paying attention.
<img src="http://www.henryholt.com/holt/whatsthemattercov.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by J'Mal:
Originally posted by Miss MArKiE?:
But does the constitution not say ( to paraphrase) that it should not be set in stone and should be modified to fit the times?
No, crap, it says absolutely no such thing. It says it may be amended by a two thirds vote in each house and ratification of 3/4 of the states, or if there is a new constitutional convention.
If the constitution means whatever you want it to mean, then it doesn't mean anything. The whole point of having a written constitution is that you protect certain core principles and ideals from the popular whims of the day, even, and especially, when doing so protects unpopular people and minorities from the will of the mob.
-------
Saddam's people in Iraq had guns, so did his army. Ordinary people did not. Hence the mass graves.
Afghanistan is an even better example. It's rarely had anything resembling a unified government. Popular uprisings helped defeat the soviet invasion as well as the taliban later on.
------
Second Amendment supporters don't tend to have hatred of First Amendment supporters.
People generally fall into two categories: those who support the bill of rights and individual freedoms generally, and those who pick and choose and twist what they like depending on which team they're cheering for.
The ACLU is firmly in the second camp. They do some admirable things, but they are hypocritical and partisan in many ways.
NRA and GOA are single-issue groups. They take no positions on non-firearms related issues, except to the extent those other issues impact their ability to function and promote their gun cause. Sometimes, this means they are better friends of the First Amendment than certain so-called "liberal" groups. [/b]
eh, that's an awfully knee jerk reaction to the aclu's gun stance. they believe in the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia, but unless you believe people should be allowed to carry nukes in a suitcase in public then you believe in some sort of gun control. the question is how much gun control (well regulated is part of the 2nd amendment, after all) and that's a congressional question more than a constitutional one
-
Originally posted by Miss MArKiE?:
But does the constitution not say ( to paraphrase) that it should not be set in stone and should be modified to fit the times?
We will all find out on Sept. 17. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/05/24/national/w095918D23.DTL&feed=rss.news)
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
Originally posted by J'Mal:
one of the first things that hitler did was take the guns away.
ugh.
i hate when this whole hitler gun control thing is brought up ... the subtle implication that the necessary next step from sensible gun control is fascism (which is used constantly by the NRA) really frustrates me [/b]
Just think, if the Jews had guns then WWII could've been nipped in the bud.
The Hitler/gun control comparison is stooooopid, and shows the NRA for the redneck morons that they are.
A more accurate comparison is USA/NAZIS....we can have nukes, but no bugger else can.
-
DC doesn't allow gun ownership which has helped immensely in making it a safe environment, Virginia and Maryland should take note.