JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
America Truly is the Greatest Country in the World.


Don't Let Freedom Slip Away

By: Kitty Werthmann

What I am about to tell you is something you've probably never heard or will ever read in history books.

I believe that I am an eyewitness to history. I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We elected him by a landslide - 98% of the vote.. I've never read that in any American publications. Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.


In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25% inflation and 25% bank loan interest rates.


Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food.. Not that they didn't want to work; there simply weren't any jobs. My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need.. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people - about 30 daily.


The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party were fighting each other. Blocks and blocks of cities like Vienna, Linz, and Graz were destroyed. The people became desperate and petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they wanted.

We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany, where Hitler had been in power since 1933. We had been told that they didn't have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living. Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group -- Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria. We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back. Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.


We were overjoyed, and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.

After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.

Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn't support his family. Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage.

Hitler Targets Education - Eliminates Religious Instruction for Children:

Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools.

The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler's picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn't pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," and had physical education.

Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail. The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it.. Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free. We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had.

My mother was very unhappy. When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn't do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun - no sports, and no political indoctrination. I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on


holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing. Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler. It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn't exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.

Equal Rights Hits Home:


In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn't work, you didn't get a ration card, and if you didn't have a card, you starved to death. Women who stayed home to raise their families didn't have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.

Soon after this, the draft was implemented. It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps. During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys. They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps. After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines. When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat. Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.

Hitler Restructured the Family Through Daycare:

When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children.. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.

Health Care and Small Business Suffer Under Government Controls:


Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienne. After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.


As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.

We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables. Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn't meet all the demands. Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.

We had consumer protection. We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.

"Mercy Killing" Redefined:


In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps. The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated. So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded.

When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work. I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van. I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months. They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.

As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this euthanasia.

The Final Steps - Gun Laws:


Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long afterwards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.
Totalitarianism didn't come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.
After World War II, Russian troops occupied Austria. Women were raped, preteen to elderly. The press never wrote about this either. When the Soviets left in 1955, they took everything that they could, dismantling whole factories in the process. They sawed down whole orchards of fruit, and what they couldn't destroy, they burned. We called it The Burned Earth. Most of the population barricaded themselves in their houses. Women hid in their cellars for 6 weeks as the troops mobilized. Those who couldn't, paid the price. There is a monument in Vienna today, dedicated to those women who were massacred by the Russians. This is an eye witness account.

"It's true..those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity. America Truly is the Greatest Country in the World. Don't Let Freedom Slip Away."

"After America, There is No Place to Go"


Incremental creep and/or what voting (incorrectly) can lead to. Think about it...… How even a VOTE for someone, can go so very wrong. Example: A.H.

A.H. was elected by the German people. I doubt that A.H. actually killed anyone (except for his time in WWI). But, his policy and laws, certainly did.

So, isn't a VOTE just as deadly? And, is it a worthy cause......to ensure that only eligible people vote?

Aloha, Mark
 
Last Edited:
Well first...…..you and the rest of your kind...….have to understand that a firearm is just an object. Most anything (even easily found objects) can be misused.
Wait- "me and the rest of MY KIND (emphasis added) What exactly does that mean? Im here to bubblegum about the gun laws on the books, that are the result of lax attention by pro-gun forces. I'm not in favor of these laws, either of the last two major passages

You can legislate behavior. Murder, Manslaughter, Assault, Arson, etc..... it's already there on the books. So WHY do you feel a need to legislate against objects when the harmful behaviors are already against the law?
Aloha, Mark

Again, I think you are addressing me as being in FAVOR of legislating the gun bans.
I'm saying, in order to avoid the last two proposals becoming laws, pro-gun forces should have been proactive.
You can't just sit back and say "shall not be infringed" over and over again. You knew SOMETHING was going to be done, why not be the architect of that change rather than suffer with something you don't like?
The NRA and other organizations haven't done their job...
 
We probably lose a lot of meaning, when we don't talk face to face. That being said.....we can also agree to disagree on certain matters. And, writing on the internet makes some things/concepts less likely to be fully understood.

In that sort of light....
The "rest of your kind" refers to those people that among other ideas, would freely entertain/allowing/giving up or diminishing RIGHTs.....in order to get a "Dream of Peace" with the gun grabbers. This I got (based on)….your proposed idea, call it being "pro-active" (if that makes you feel better).

Sorry, but to me....let's agree to disagree on how to thwart the gun grabbers.

Then.....
"You" (beginning, in the next quote). Is perhaps, more like a ROYAL you/we.

So then moving on....
YES....the NRA hasn't ALLWAYS acted in a way, that I would have liked them to. Example: acceptance of the 1994 ban or even the 1934 laws on fully auto firearms, SBR, silencers, and other devices, etc..... and some of the other subsequent laws that have come and stuck.

IF I had an unlimited source of money (not saying that NRA does).....
Maybe, I could have filed the lawsuits and brought the issues to the SCOTUS. But then, the gun grabbers under color of LAW and using taxpayers money.....will not stop coming up with passing new laws. Put one down and more pops up. So....YES, I'm dreaming.

For the record.....
IMHO, requiring a payment of a "TAX" (1934 law) to exercise a RIGHT.....is still an "infringement". If you know.....please, educate me. Has that TAX issue ever gone to the SCOTUS? And, what did the SCOTUS say about TAXES and "infringement"?

But then, seeing that the Govt can demand that everyone buy health insurance (I call it a sort of TAX) from a select Govt. approved list of providers. OMG! And, for the record....I believe that the OBAMA Health Care Law is IMHO Unconstitutional.

And, before we go there....SS is run by the Govt, not private industry.

Aloha, Mark
 
Im not saying everyone should keep stepping up and capitulating to appease those in favor of gun bans. I think we do need to ensure that anyone who is prohibited from having a firearm (yes, I know, "shall not be infringed means EVERYONE is allowed guns) should not have one. Aside from building a list of "registered gun owners" (again, your Hitlerstory) I think running a NICS is the least invasive. And making an additional law that says it can't go farther. In essence, reinforce the Amendment. Gun banners would then try to add people to the list, based on health history, false restraining orders, etc. Make laws preempting any of this. Have to be a step ahead.
 
I was once on a Govt "list" (in a neg. way). Or maybe at least, I believed that I was. Funny how the Govt doesn't like to disclose.....why. Or even confirm, that I'm on a list.

Then.....
Allow for a quick fix. LOL, when they are wrong. Oh no, the Govt can never be wrong! So, call it an error - if it makes you more comfortable with saying it that way.

But fixing stuff? Well....it can be expensive. So, good luck with your beliefs.

Aloha, Mark
 
Last Edited:
Well, the alternative is...well, what we have. They pass laws, and we bubblegum about it but nothing else. Would be nice if this side took the initiative. But it has to be a proposal that has a chance of passing, and that means winning over the centrists- those who are not rabid, but willing to go along with a proposal from either side "if it sounds good". That's how any of these laws pass.
 
So by your post...

Well, the alternative is...well, what we have. They pass laws, and we bubblegum about it but nothing else. Would be nice if this side took the initiative. But it has to be a proposal that has a chance of passing, and that means winning over the centrists- those who are not rabid, but willing to go along with a proposal from either side "if it sounds good". That's how any of these laws pass.

I guess you're comfortable with calling me (and the others who may share my views, aka: supporters of the 2nd A and/or those who are not Centrists, by your call)….."rabid".

So then....without getting into a name calling joust.

The alternative is recognition.

That being, "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Means what it says. It was clear enough back when it was written. It's sad that years of redefining words has led to so much confusion in today's society.

So, when are you gonna answer my question about whether it's acceptable to place the same sort of restrictions on firearms ownership.....as on voting rights?

So then.....it would be OK if the Govt charged a fee to vote (speak in public, gather in groups to hear a speech, publish a book, attend church, report the news, etc...)?

IF you are OK with it.
Then.....at what price would it take for you to object?


And, don't play with. "It's the FFL and the PDs that are actually charging the fees." That doesn't fly IMHO. Because in the end, someone (be they the prospective buyer or voter, as the case may be) will have to pay in order to exercise what is suppose to be a RIGHT. It doesn't matter who gets the money or under what "title of justification" one wishes to put on it.

Aloha, Mark

 
Last Edited:
So by your post...

I guess you're comfortable with calling me (and the others who may share my views, aka: supporters of the 2nd A and/or those who are not Centrists, by your call)….."rabid".
[\QUOTE

I would say, it's not as simple as that- just like there's not just Democrats, Republicans, and the "swing vote". I was oversimplifying in the same way, not with the intention of name calling.

So then....without getting into a name calling joust.

The alternative is recognition.

That being, "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Means what it says. It was clear enough back when it was written. It's sad that years of redefining words has led to so much confusion in today's society.
[\QUOTE

I understand, it should be pretty clear. But for some reason it's not. So a person can complain about how people "just don't get it" (and you kids get off my lawn!) or you can adapt and understand that unfortunately a lot of people need things explained to them- basically passing additional laws that do the same thing (just like anti- gun forces keep passing laws "to prevent crime" when there are already laws making those crimes illegal in the first place!)


So, when are you gonna answer my question about whether it's acceptable to place the same sort of restrictions on firearms ownership.....as on voting rights?
[\QUOTE

I don't think anyone's killed a single person with a vote- are you saying voting should be restricted to only those who have a hard card ID (I didn't get my drivers license until 21), have a residential street address (no PO Boxes or mail distribution centers like in the case of the homeless or reservations where street addresses don't exist?). I see a lot of attempts to restrict voting. Do you think the working (or non-working) poor are going to spend their time driving around from polling center to polling center casting multiple votes? The ONE documented instance of a fraudulent vote that is provable was someone with the exact same name as his dead father.
I'm going to assume you believe the homeless or those on reservations should be able to own guns- do you want to exclude them if they have documented mental health issues, a violent criminal history...?


So then.....it would be OK if the Govt charged a fee to vote (speak in public, gather in groups to hear a speech, publish a book, attend church, report the news, etc...)?

IF you are OK with it.
Then.....at what price would it take for you to object?


And, don't play with. "It's the FFL and the PDs that are actually charging the fees." That doesn't fly IMHO. Because in the end, someone (be they the prospective buyer or voter, as the case may be) will have to pay in order to exercise what is suppose to be a RIGHT. It doesn't matter who gets the money or under what "title of justification" one wishes to put on it.
[\QUOTE

That's just it- you shouldn't have to. I proposed the example of Minnesota (a fairly liberal state with conservative rural areas, pretty much on par with Washington) where you DON'T pay for the right to buy a gun. You get the NICS run by the police for FREE, you get a hard card to prove it, and don't have to do it again for a YEAR, no matter how many guns you buy. The only thing you pay for is the gun (and tax, which the government gets)
So, why couldn't someone have proposed a system like that, instead of standing their ground insisting a law can't pass because "shall not be infringed". Say it all you want, but we've got 2 laws passed in 4 years that both violate that tenet.
 
Ask about the number of people wrongfully placed on the No Fly List sometime. It's more than you think and there's no way off without practically having God Himself shove a lightning bolt up some bureaucrap's arse...
 
I asked a simple question.

So then.....it would be OK if the Govt charged a fee to vote (speak in public, gather in groups to hear a speech, publish a book, attend church, report the news, etc...)?

IF you are OK with it.
Then.....at what price would it take for you to object?


And, your response was...…..
That's just it- you shouldn't have to. I proposed the example of Minnesota (a fairly liberal state with conservative rural areas, pretty much on par with Washington) where you DON'T pay for the right to buy a gun. You get the NICS run by the police for FREE, you get a hard card to prove it, and don't have to do it again for a YEAR, no matter how many guns you buy. The only thing you pay for is the gun (and tax, which the government gets)
So, why couldn't someone have proposed a system like that, instead of standing their ground insisting a law can't pass because "shall not be infringed". Say it all you want, but we've got 2 laws passed in 4 years that both violate that tenet.

By your post. It's obvious that you're avoiding answering the question. Moving along.....that's great that you like MN laws.

Me....nope. As I said. Even Hawaii had a permit to acquire system.

In Hawaii.....
You could go to your favorite gun store and make arrangements to buy a firearm (say a handgun). Then....you can stand in line at the PD. Get fingerprinted. Do more paperwork (recording the exact ser # of the intended purchase). Sign away your privacy to medical records. Pay for the BGC. Wait for approval. Go back and stand in line again, to pick up the paperwork (assuming it was approved). Take the paperwork to the gun store. Pay for your firearm. Then, go back to the PD and stand in line again to register it. Mind you that the process had to be repeated for each handgun purchase. You weren't given a one year permit to acquire. Though back then, with the same process, you could get a 1 year permit for rifles.*

WOW.....such reasonable restrictions to exercise a RIGHT huh? BTW....there is only one PD on Oahu to do your gun business at. So of course, the line is long. IMHO, that ain't FREEDOM. Paying a fee or not. And, that also goes for jumping through hoops to be approved for something that is a RIGHT.

But the subject was WA I-1639 and not MN or HI laws.

Then.....
MN is not immune to LIBERRALS and laws can always change. Even FED LAWS can trump state laws.
Speaking of which.....just to keep you entertained.....


*That is how I remember things. If it's changed....so be it.

Aloha, Mark
 
Last Edited:
I don't think anyone's killed a single person with a vote- are you saying voting should be restricted to only those who have a hard card ID (I didn't get my drivers license until 21), have a residential street address (no PO Boxes or mail distribution centers like in the case of the homeless or reservations where street addresses don't exist?). I see a lot of attempts to restrict voting. Do you think the working (or non-working) poor are going to spend their time driving around from polling center to polling center casting multiple votes? The ONE documented instance of a fraudulent vote that is provable was someone with the exact same name as his dead father.
I'm going to assume you believe the homeless or those on reservations should be able to own guns- do you want to exclude them if they have documented mental health issues, a violent criminal history...?


NOTE: The VOTE of the German people in the election of A.H. was a far more powerful/effective tool used to kill innocent people, than the firearms owned by private citizens.

GunControlWorks123.jpg

And, under color of law too.

That being said.....

ID-when-voting.jpg

So then.....
As a most general concept. IF, someone is allowed to VOTE, then he/she should also be allowed to exercise ALL of their RIGHTS. Simple as that.

To me....
It's somewhat funny that some states allow voting by the mentally ill and convicted felons (even while still in prison). And, I didn't even mention those convicted of other crimes that makes someone into a "prohibited person". Should being a prohibited person be the litmus test for voting? WOW....that's extreme.

BUT I figure....you've fallen for the anti-gunners arguments. That there should be a "litmus test" at all. That some people walking amongst us are worthy of RIGHTS (including self defense - be it by firearms) while others are not.

So then, prohibited people.….
Well, I say that the issue can be addressed on a case by case basis. For a convicted criminal, it's called a "sentence." So, serve ALL of your time. IF/When you're released. You've paid your debt to society. IF, you get out early (paroled, probation, whatever...) there can be restrictions placed upon you.

As for the mentally ill.....
If you're a danger to yourself or others. Then, you should NOT be walking around amongst us.

That simple concept (danger to yourself or others) should also go for convicted and released criminals. LOL. At times it seems like the Govt wants them out in the public causing even more crime and misery.

So then.....
Isn't that all the more reason for me to be able to defend myself (with a firearm) without having to jump through hoops or pay fees to exercise my RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms? Having never been convicted of anything. Why is it my burden to prove that I'm worthy of firearms ownership?

Aloha, Mark
 
Last Edited:
BTW, I think I did answer your question about the taxation, or restriction on gun ownership vs voting rights.


Ok, just to avoid a stupid escalation-
What is your proposed solution?
And what is your anticipated outcome (assuming your proposed solution is going to be "dump all the laws on the books and go back to the 2nd amendment at it's core")

And what is your current realistic expectation, given the world we currently live in and the direction things are progressing?
 
Here is a Petition that has been started to have the President and his staff abolish I-1639

have already signed it.

To abolish unlawful, unjust, and unconstitutional gun laws in Washington state (I-1639). | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government


Has this government responded to any of the other White House petitions that have reached the signature total required? (and in many cases, exceeded by a significant margin)
It's amazing how many people will still sign petitions, when they have been shown ineffective .there's no force behind them. Even the White House dot gov ones, the President has said he has no obligation to answer. The prior administration answered them on s regular basis.
 
So heres the way it is in washington
An AR receiver can be built into a long gun or hand gun

If it is stamped pistol then pistol it is


Yeah, no. If it is sold as a pistol as in a complete excise tax paid pistol then its a pistol and can become a rifle and oddly enough back again. If its sold as a rifle as in federal excise tax paid complete rifle then its always a rifle unless its done NFA.

Otherwise it makes no difference whats stamped on the receiver . Its just a receiver and can be built as whatever.
 
Somebody else who deals with ARs is going to have to address this, but as far as I know, if it's serialized as a pistol, it can't become a rifle .you can mount the parts on it yes, they are fully interchangeable, but the RECEIVER IS THE FIREARM and if it's a pistol in official records, it's a pistol.
Just like a machine gun receiver- without ANY OTHER PARTS it is just a chunk of metal, but if you get caught holding it without papers, you're going to federal "pound me in the bubblegum" prison.


You couldn't be wronger. A pistol receiver can be built into a rifle. No problem. Don't mix this up with the NFA. Entire different world. A pistol receiver can be built either way even it it came originally built as an excise tax paid complete pistol.
Do a little research before passing your ill informed opinion off as fact.
 
Last Edited:
BTW, I think I did answer your question about the taxation, or restriction on gun ownership vs voting rights.


Ok, just to avoid a stupid escalation-
What is your proposed solution?
And what is your anticipated outcome (assuming your proposed solution is going to be "dump all the laws on the books and go back to the 2nd amendment at it's core")

And what is your current realistic expectation, given the world we currently live in and the direction things are progressing?

It's obvious to me that.....
You (the individual) haven't been reading my posts and/or you just lack (on some level) the ability to comprehend what the 2nd A says and means.

With that in mind.....
I urge people (yourself included) to re-read The Constitution of the United States (focus on the Bill of Rights) and re-familiarize yourself with American History (emphasis with that time period in mind).

Then, read about the various gun laws that were passed by Germany (after WW1 - it didn't all start with A.H.). Note the familiarity between German Gun Laws (and the later NAZI Gun Laws) to those that have already passed and are being proposed today here in America.

Expand your readings to the evolution of American Gun Laws. Note how the lawmakers had envisioned them to suppress certain minority groups and quell unrest within this country. Oh yeah! It's good to be on top. And it's easier to control a population that lacks arms.

Perhaps more people (including you) might clearly see the why the 2nd A is so important to America and why it means what it says.

Note that the 2nd A of The Constitution DOESN'T say...…
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless I say it's reasonable.

Aloha, Mark
 
Last Edited:
German gun laws post WW 1 were forced on Germany by the allies by the treaty of Versailles. Hitlers gun laws were actually a relaxation of those restrictions.
 
German gun laws post WW 1 were forced on Germany by the allies by the treaty of Versailles. Hitlers gun laws were actually a relaxation of those restrictions.

Not EXACTLY true.

The Treaty limited the arms held by the Govt. (for Govt usage). Not so.....for civilian arms. But then of course, as time went on some of those same "civilian arms" were the basis for the secret re-arming as Germany rebuilt.

As for Hitler's relaxation? LOL. Rrrright.....certain trusted Germans could have arms. And the prohibited "undesirable people" were barred from arms. You call that a relaxation?

Aloha, Mark

Reading link: How the Nazis Used Gun Control | National Review

and one more: The Past as Prelude: Nazi Disarmament and the U.S. Gun Grab
 
Last Edited:
Ok. But now we're back to the old man screaming at clouds.
Again- saying "shall not be infringed" is all well and good, but how much success has it had in the legislatorial arena?

I can't debate the same point over and over.
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors April 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top