That goes both ways though. I was thinking about this last night. Removing preemption means we can actually have legally recognized 2A sanctuary cities and counties.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
- Messages
- 2,706
- Reactions
- 3,151
Yeah I wasn't expecting you to take exception since you make those comparisons quite often. If you think Jews in 1930s Germany and YOU are remotely comparable, you are profoundly, off-the-scale wrong.
Let me know when they put you in a camp.
@Joe Link
- Thread Starter
- #83
My grandfather escaped Germany right before he was "put into a camp". In my area they had little caged off areas with little huts where people who were "suspected" of having Covid were held, so do you really think it's a far stretch that it won't happen again but just to "political enemies"?
- Messages
- 2,706
- Reactions
- 3,151
There is absolutely no similarity between what happened in reaction to COVID and The Holocaust. Not the slightest.
Perhaps you would like to speak with my favorite Rabbi about such comparisons. I am sure he would give you some things to think about.
- Thread Starter
- #85
I am by no means directly comparing the Holocaust to Covid, I am talking about the state of mind of the individuals who wish to force their ideology upon those of us who do not wish to comply and what they're willing to do to us as a result...
- Thread Starter
- #86
And in all actuality I would love to talk to your Rabbi, there's not a lot of Jewish people in my area who are actually practicing individuals.
- Messages
- 2,706
- Reactions
- 3,151
If you aren't intending to make a comparison, then don't make one.
- Thread Starter
- #88
Sometimes people don't like to hear comparisons that hit a little too close to home, I am sorry if I offended you.
- Messages
- 2,706
- Reactions
- 3,151
Thanks, I know you are not intending to offend.
- Messages
- 16
- Reactions
- 14
Just to add my 2 cents. There have been many concentration camps besides in nazi germany where the guards said "I'm just doing my job". Australia just in 2020 was the most recent.
Please
First there was no disrespect toward the Holocaust or its survivors in my statement. Nor is it an indictment of all law-enforcement officers. It was simply a warning that that mentality still exists.
- Messages
- 12,189
- Reactions
- 21,614
Couple of interesting similarities here in the theories of Bonhoeffer (a theologian who was jailed and eventually executed for speaking out against the nazis in Germany) and what is going on today. Especially the part about people's unwillingness to listen facts, and to follow. The part at 3:25 mark might sound familiar if you have talked to anti-gun people about guns. 5 min video. What was true about human nature in the 1940's is still true today I think.
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 16,960
- Reactions
- 27,898
Inslee says.......
Me.....
Aloha, Mark
Me.....
Aloha, Mark
- Messages
- 824
- Reactions
- 2,104
One could feasibly present some parallels between modern gun-control and the lead-up to the Holocaust(or any other genocide throughout modern history).
1st and foremost starting out with a majority that becomes largely complacement and/or indifferent towards the demonization of a minority.
Genocides do not develop overnight. They begin with craftily designed propaganda labeling a certain subsect of individuals as percieved 'enemies of the state' and a 'threat to the majority's ideology'.
It makes it easier to gradually exclude this subsect from public life, and to eventually subjugate them.
It also makes it easier for the majority populace to turn a blind eye to persecution and violence against this minority.
The ultimate goal of the antis is to shrink the number of lawful firearms owners in this country. As each successive generation is indoctrinated that: "Civilian firearm ownership is a threat to the nation's collective safety and security; only the state, its military and civilian police force need to be armed"; this end-goal is gradually achieved.
The Holocaust was only 80 years ago. Khmer Rouge <50 years ago. Rwanda <30 years
To believe that "It can't (or won't) happen here" is to ignore history, and human nature's role in it.
1st and foremost starting out with a majority that becomes largely complacement and/or indifferent towards the demonization of a minority.
Genocides do not develop overnight. They begin with craftily designed propaganda labeling a certain subsect of individuals as percieved 'enemies of the state' and a 'threat to the majority's ideology'.
It makes it easier to gradually exclude this subsect from public life, and to eventually subjugate them.
It also makes it easier for the majority populace to turn a blind eye to persecution and violence against this minority.
The ultimate goal of the antis is to shrink the number of lawful firearms owners in this country. As each successive generation is indoctrinated that: "Civilian firearm ownership is a threat to the nation's collective safety and security; only the state, its military and civilian police force need to be armed"; this end-goal is gradually achieved.
The Holocaust was only 80 years ago. Khmer Rouge <50 years ago. Rwanda <30 years
To believe that "It can't (or won't) happen here" is to ignore history, and human nature's role in it.
It all falls under the umbrella of tyranny and totalitarianism. The Holocaust is obviously at the farthest reaches of that umbrella.
Nobody is saying the challenges we face today are just as bad, only that certain parallels can be made.
Some people just like to be butt hurt.
I don't think the Benitez ruling has run its full course through the courts yet, has it? Wasn't it vacated at the US Supreme Court and sent back down for more review?
I couldn't find the older case that I'd mentioned (but it might be in the citations listed in the link, below). There is a body of case law surrounding the takings clause. Lately, it has come up with respect to the bump stock ban:
Note that part that says, "lower federal courts and state courts have concluded that bans on unreasonably dangerous weapons do not implicate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Then the argument becomes, what constitututes "unreasonably dangerous" which no doubt some people might find is a definition with some elasticity.
Could be that magazines will be found to be different from firearms in that by themselves, they do not comprise an unreasonably dangerous nature.
I don't place a lot of confidence in favorable rulings from a right wing US Supreme Court. One reason, the Bruen decision upheld the right of states to impose various "gun safety regulations" which in my mind can be widely interpreted. Another reason, the court isn't immune from public pressures, in the present situation, all it takes is one justice to go adrift.
Another workaround to full confiscation is extremely burdensome regulation to discourage. If I recall correctly, President Biden mentioned something about making "assault rifles" subject to NFA rules. I don't know where that wound up. I haven't heard anything about it lately. Maybe he's been too busy with real work. Or maybe someone decided it was impractical considering number of firearms concerned as against amount of work involved in executing the program.
SCOTUS vacated the 9th Circuit's overturning of Benitez' decision and sent the case back to Judge Benitez
eta Thomas wrote in the Bruen decision that gun restrictions must be measured by the nation's history, not by a state's assertion of urgent public safety interests. He said the Second Amendment "requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment's text and historical understanding."
Extract from Thomas's opinion:
"After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, "[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Id., at 626. "From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Ibid. For example, we found it "fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'" that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are "'in common use at the time.'" Id., at 627 (first citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)). That said, we cautioned that we were not "undertak[ing] an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment"
Which I read means we can't have everything we may want. But "in common use at the time" should mean AR's are untouchable. Let's see how that works out.
Upholding the individual right was an important confirmation in this ruling. One which the anti-gunners disputed for many years.
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PSA Lightweight FN rollmarked 14.7" CHF premium MLOK upper- Started by aljames
- Replies: 0
-
-
BNIB BNB machine dillon 650 short stroke kit- Started by Weebs
- Replies: 0
-
