Topic: Liberals prefer Women be Unarmed and Raped
no photo
Sat 03/09/13 02:43 PM
Rapists and psychopathic serial killers would also prefer that law abiding citizens be unarmed.


Conrad_73's photo
Sat 03/09/13 02:44 PM
"Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death.
I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings."
-L. Neil Smith

no photo
Sat 03/09/13 02:57 PM

"Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death.
I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings."
-L. Neil Smith


And we will need guns to enforce that punishment. LOL

mightymoe's photo
Sat 03/09/13 03:10 PM
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html

no photo
Sat 03/09/13 03:11 PM


"Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death.
I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings."
-L. Neil Smith


And we will need guns to enforce that punishment. LOL


Yeah, and plenty of em...laugh

SpicyExcel's photo
Sat 03/09/13 03:44 PM
Edited by SpicyExcel on Sat 03/09/13 03:55 PM







No matter how one look's a the loss of life or an infringement upon there personal well being it is tragic experience. I beleive we all sympathy's for anyone whose had a criminal act committed against them, family, or friend. When one is fearful of their well being one want's a means to protect them-self. This has alway's been part of human exsistance.

The Second Admendment I believe originally was created for Militia purposes.

Looking through history and the first development of guns (Cannon was the first 1400 cenury) its' purpose was for military use. Looking back in history again at the development of iron (The Iron Age) the purpose of iron was for tools, and armaments. At this time business men were largely fighting and their armament was often the riches and most beautiful. Wealthy individuals' were the only one's who could afford these items'.

Looking back just before the development of the U.S. Constitution the U.S. was defending itself from the Indians' and French which at that time the U.S. had NO organized military. This made it difficult to defend the nation, so a small Militia group was organized of 80 individual's the expanded to around 500.

Originally Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S Constitution had nothing to do with the rigth's to bare arms. It was deveolped for the House of Representatives of several State's and needed to be elected. It stated the AGE one must be to be a Member, Taxes, How many Representatives for 30,000 individuals' and limited the number of Representatives for some States.

Article 2 only had one section 1 which preserved the power President of the U.S. and the Militia of the U.S.

It was only later the issue of the Second Admendment came into interpretation of the "right to bare arm"; which is an open statement for interpretation by many.

To argue this point ONE'S RIGHT TO BARE ARMS' could mean that anyone who has obtained a GUN are by the U.S. Government Rights to be drafted into Military Services without question, since the first part of the Second Admendment states; "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."; the key words' are "...MILITIA AND FREE STATE..." and the later pare "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." that as long as you bare arms you are part of the U.S. Government Armed Forces.

If you bare arms and argue that individuals have the right to bare arms, but your against a military conflict it could then be interpreted that you are an enemy of the U.S. State and Government. The arguement now is are these individuals' under the juridiction of Military Law if they oppose military action by the U.S. Government.

Most guns are developed for military use's and have been throughout history. Gun manufactures' want this debate because it keep's them in business and allow's revenue for further development of armaments' (THIS IS A FACT).

The true questions' should people be discussing are physiology "...The science that deals with the normal functioning of living organisms and their parts....". What causes criminal activity and how to prevent it from occuring, what cause fear in and individual to develope or continue after a tramatic experience etc.

I can state that part of the problem is fear in society to disclose criminal activity out of being ostacized or attached for disclosure of criminal activity.

Guns have a purpose in society if used correctly to defend a State belief or hunting and gathering. Do people honesty need to walk around in fear of being shot intentionally, accidentally, or being a victim of any other crime?



seems to me that they would be creating more criminals by banning guns... then only the criminals would have them...


I believe you did not understand how the Second Admendment can be interpreted of the Federal Government chose to do so in-order too prevent crime and how the Federal Government is influenced in this market.


you can't prevent crime... it's going to happen.. do you think if everyone in the US had a pistol on their side, would there be more or less crime?


Your right crime cannot be prevented entirely there are to many different crimes one can commit.

If eveyone had a pistol on their side you would end up with more crime that's inevidable. People have irrational behaviour and fear. They would use the pistol because their angry; not all would responed this way, but some would. The point of any control is to prevent unstable individuals from possessing a gun or a drug addited having one. It's not to prevent civilized individuals from owning or protecting themselves.

This being said it does not stop the Government from impossing the Second Admendment Right during times of defence. Look at the Vietnam War and the draft's that took place. Some criminals before the courts for gun crimes had the option to join the military rather than prison. Other wars are similar. Which part of the population/society go to war in the better part. Read paragraph 3 of my original statement and analyze what it is saying in regards to modern society.
WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rights are not bestowed on the Citizen by Government!Government doesn't own those Rights!
They are inherent in the Citizen!

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]



Admendment 2: Infringe: "...you can own a pistol..." does not refer to any other type of gun one has the right to bear Quoted by the Supreme Court.






This being said it does not stop the Government from impossing the Second Admendment Right during times of defence. Look at the Vietnam War and the draft's that took place. Some criminals before the courts for gun crimes had the option to join the military rather than prison. Other wars are similar. Which part of the population/society go to war in the better part.



here your not wrong, but not up to date... there has been no draft since then, and they just recently passed a bill to end selective service registration... now they replaced that with promising foreigners citizenship with a service deployment...


"promising foreigners citizenship with a service deployment..." this came into effect after Sept 11, 2001 and only if the immigrant served in the war. These immigrant were asked and given the right to apply for citizenship immediately after their service to the U.S. Government in war. It does not change the formal part of the Constitution written prior too the admendment it only adds to the Aritcle and section inwhich it is applied too.

no photo
Sat 03/09/13 06:02 PM


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


A thought came to my mind that because drones are so easy to make and operate, and because the government is trying to make it legal to use drones to assassinate suspected terrorists or "enemies of the state" I think, as citizens, we will need more than just guns to protect our freedom.

We will need missiles to shoot down incoming drones and we will need some drones as well.

no photo
Sat 03/09/13 06:03 PM
Edited by Jeanniebean on Sat 03/09/13 06:04 PM
The thought also comes to mine that Hitler considered Jews to be "enemies of the state."

Our government could designate anyone it pleases as "enemies of the State."

SpicyExcel's photo
Sat 03/09/13 06:29 PM

The thought also comes to mine that Hitler considered Jews to be "enemies of the state."

Our government could designate anyone it pleases as "enemies of the State."


Hitler looked at every Nationallity as an enemy of his State during his rein in power. He made an example of the Jewish nationallity because of their belief.

I doubt the U.S Government is going to take that approach. The U.S. Constitution does not entitle the President of the U.S. to be in power during a moment of diagnosed mental illness. The President of the U.S. can after being medically clear resume his position of Head of State; stated in the U.S. Constitution.

msharmony's photo
Sat 03/09/13 06:41 PM
Edited by msharmony on Sat 03/09/13 06:41 PM

Stefan Molyneux
If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions.


another leap of logic

'if you are for gun control ,,,,,you believe only the government should be allowed to have guns'

thats like saying, if you are for drug laws, you are for only drug addicts having drugs

in reality, there are many legit individuals and circumstances in which drugs are necessary and safe, and many in which they are not

the same is true of guns,,,,

SpicyExcel's photo
Sat 03/09/13 07:55 PM
Edited by SpicyExcel on Sat 03/09/13 07:55 PM


another leap of logic

'if you are for gun control ,,,,,you believe only the government should be allowed to have guns'

thats like saying, if you are for drug laws, you are for only drug addicts having drugs

in reality, there are many legit individuals and circumstances in which drugs are necessary and safe, and many in which they are not

the same is true of guns,,,,


It seems that you understand what I've been trying too say!

Conrad_73's photo
Sat 03/09/13 10:29 PM








No matter how one look's a the loss of life or an infringement upon there personal well being it is tragic experience. I beleive we all sympathy's for anyone whose had a criminal act committed against them, family, or friend. When one is fearful of their well being one want's a means to protect them-self. This has alway's been part of human exsistance.

The Second Admendment I believe originally was created for Militia purposes.

Looking through history and the first development of guns (Cannon was the first 1400 cenury) its' purpose was for military use. Looking back in history again at the development of iron (The Iron Age) the purpose of iron was for tools, and armaments. At this time business men were largely fighting and their armament was often the riches and most beautiful. Wealthy individuals' were the only one's who could afford these items'.

Looking back just before the development of the U.S. Constitution the U.S. was defending itself from the Indians' and French which at that time the U.S. had NO organized military. This made it difficult to defend the nation, so a small Militia group was organized of 80 individual's the expanded to around 500.

Originally Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S Constitution had nothing to do with the rigth's to bare arms. It was deveolped for the House of Representatives of several State's and needed to be elected. It stated the AGE one must be to be a Member, Taxes, How many Representatives for 30,000 individuals' and limited the number of Representatives for some States.

Article 2 only had one section 1 which preserved the power President of the U.S. and the Militia of the U.S.

It was only later the issue of the Second Admendment came into interpretation of the "right to bare arm"; which is an open statement for interpretation by many.

To argue this point ONE'S RIGHT TO BARE ARMS' could mean that anyone who has obtained a GUN are by the U.S. Government Rights to be drafted into Military Services without question, since the first part of the Second Admendment states; "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."; the key words' are "...MILITIA AND FREE STATE..." and the later pare "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." that as long as you bare arms you are part of the U.S. Government Armed Forces.

If you bare arms and argue that individuals have the right to bare arms, but your against a military conflict it could then be interpreted that you are an enemy of the U.S. State and Government. The arguement now is are these individuals' under the juridiction of Military Law if they oppose military action by the U.S. Government.

Most guns are developed for military use's and have been throughout history. Gun manufactures' want this debate because it keep's them in business and allow's revenue for further development of armaments' (THIS IS A FACT).

The true questions' should people be discussing are physiology "...The science that deals with the normal functioning of living organisms and their parts....". What causes criminal activity and how to prevent it from occuring, what cause fear in and individual to develope or continue after a tramatic experience etc.

I can state that part of the problem is fear in society to disclose criminal activity out of being ostacized or attached for disclosure of criminal activity.

Guns have a purpose in society if used correctly to defend a State belief or hunting and gathering. Do people honesty need to walk around in fear of being shot intentionally, accidentally, or being a victim of any other crime?



seems to me that they would be creating more criminals by banning guns... then only the criminals would have them...


I believe you did not understand how the Second Admendment can be interpreted of the Federal Government chose to do so in-order too prevent crime and how the Federal Government is influenced in this market.


you can't prevent crime... it's going to happen.. do you think if everyone in the US had a pistol on their side, would there be more or less crime?


Your right crime cannot be prevented entirely there are to many different crimes one can commit.

If eveyone had a pistol on their side you would end up with more crime that's inevidable. People have irrational behaviour and fear. They would use the pistol because their angry; not all would responed this way, but some would. The point of any control is to prevent unstable individuals from possessing a gun or a drug addited having one. It's not to prevent civilized individuals from owning or protecting themselves.

This being said it does not stop the Government from impossing the Second Admendment Right during times of defence. Look at the Vietnam War and the draft's that took place. Some criminals before the courts for gun crimes had the option to join the military rather than prison. Other wars are similar. Which part of the population/society go to war in the better part. Read paragraph 3 of my original statement and analyze what it is saying in regards to modern society.
WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rights are not bestowed on the Citizen by Government!Government doesn't own those Rights!
They are inherent in the Citizen!

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]



Admendment 2: Infringe: "...you can own a pistol..." does not refer to any other type of gun one has the right to bear Quoted by the Supreme Court.






This being said it does not stop the Government from impossing the Second Admendment Right during times of defence. Look at the Vietnam War and the draft's that took place. Some criminals before the courts for gun crimes had the option to join the military rather than prison. Other wars are similar. Which part of the population/society go to war in the better part.



here your not wrong, but not up to date... there has been no draft since then, and they just recently passed a bill to end selective service registration... now they replaced that with promising foreigners citizenship with a service deployment...


"promising foreigners citizenship with a service deployment..." this came into effect after Sept 11, 2001 and only if the immigrant served in the war. These immigrant were asked and given the right to apply for citizenship immediately after their service to the U.S. Government in war. It does not change the formal part of the Constitution written prior too the admendment it only adds to the Aritcle and section inwhich it is applied too.
what does that have to do with anything!
That First Clause is clear enough,except for those little Wannabe Tyrants who fear an Armed Citizen!

Conrad_73's photo
Sat 03/09/13 10:36 PM


The thought also comes to mine that Hitler considered Jews to be "enemies of the state."

Our government could designate anyone it pleases as "enemies of the State."


Hitler looked at every Nationallity as an enemy of his State during his rein in power. He made an example of the Jewish nationallity because of their belief.

I doubt the U.S Government is going to take that approach. The U.S. Constitution does not entitle the President of the U.S. to be in power during a moment of diagnosed mental illness. The President of the U.S. can after being medically clear resume his position of Head of State; stated in the U.S. Constitution.
Interesting that the US Firearms Act is modeled on Hitler's 1938 Firearms Act!

http://freeplanetickettonorthkorea.tumblr.com/guns-nazi

SpicyExcel's photo
Sun 03/10/13 01:56 PM



The thought also comes to mine that Hitler considered Jews to be "enemies of the state."

Our government could designate anyone it pleases as "enemies of the State."


Hitler looked at every Nationallity as an enemy of his State during his rein in power. He made an example of the Jewish nationallity because of their belief.

I doubt the U.S Government is going to take that approach. The U.S. Constitution does not entitle the President of the U.S. to be in power during a moment of diagnosed mental illness. The President of the U.S. can after being medically clear resume his position of Head of State; stated in the U.S. Constitution.
Interesting that the US Firearms Act is modeled on Hitler's 1938 Firearms Act!

http://freeplanetickettonorthkorea.tumblr.com/guns-nazi


You certainly did not read what statement the reply was directed towards. Therefore how can you make a remark about another comment.

Conrad_73's photo
Sun 03/10/13 02:03 PM



The thought also comes to mine that Hitler considered Jews to be "enemies of the state."

Our government could designate anyone it pleases as "enemies of the State."


Hitler looked at every Nationallity as an enemy of his State during his rein in power. He made an example of the Jewish nationallity because of their belief.

I doubt the U.S Government is going to take that approach. The U.S. Constitution does not entitle the President of the U.S. to be in power during a moment of diagnosed mental illness. The President of the U.S. can after being medically clear resume his position of Head of State; stated in the U.S. Constitution.
Interesting that the US Firearms Act is modeled on Hitler's 1938 Firearms Act!

http://freeplanetickettonorthkorea.tumblr.com/guns-nazi

Startling evidence suggests that the United States Gun Control Act of 1968 was lifted, almost in its entirety, from Nazi legislation.

JPFO has hard evidence that shows that the Nazi Weapons Law (March 18, 1938) is the source of the U.S Gun Control Act of 1968 (United States Gun Control Act ‘68). Adolph Hitler signed the Nazi Weapons Law. The Gestapo (Nazi National Secret Police) enforced it. In “Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny we present the official German text of the Nazi Weapons Law and a side-by-side translation into English. Even more deadly: a side-by-side, section-by-section comparison of the United States Gun Control Act ‘68 with the Nazi Weapons Law. If you have this in your hands, no one can tell you that you’re imagining things.

The clincher: JPFO knows who implanted into American law cancerous ideas from the Nazi Weapons Law.

The likely culprit is a former senator, now deceased. We have documentary proof — see below — that he had the original text of the Nazi Weapons Law in his possession 4 months before the bill that became United States Gun Control Act ‘68 was signed into law.

This former senator was a senior member of the U.S. team that helped to prosecute Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, Germany, in 1945-46. That is probably where he found out about the Nazi Weapons Law. He may have gotten a copy of it then, or at a later date. We cannot imagine why any U.S. lawmaker would own original texts of Nazi laws. To find out his name, read on.

With this hard evidence in your hands and in your head, you can destroy cancerous “gun control”. You can challenge anyone who backs “gun control”. You can show them the Nazi ideas, line by line.

The parallels between the Nazi law and United States Gun Control Act ‘68 will leap at you from the page. For example, law abiding firearm owners in Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey must carry identification cards based on formats from the Nazi Weapons Law. Nazi based laws have no place in America. Thousands of Americans died or were wounded in the war to wipe out the Nazis. They did not suffer or die so that Hitler’s ideas could live on in America and kill more Americans. Remember Killeen, Texas! The 23 who died in Luby’s Cafeteria there died because they obeyed Nazi inspired “gun control” laws. The law forced them, unarmed, to face an armed madman.

To destroy “gun control” before more law abiding Americans are murdered by criminals or madmen helped by “gun control”, you need to get hold of the evidence as presented in“Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny. You can then challenge the media, the most aggressive backers of “gun control”. Ask media personalities in your city or town why they back Nazi based laws. You can help to erase “gun control”, Hitler’s last legacy.

United States Gun Control Act ‘68 puts your life at risk right now. You have a constitutional civil right to be armed in order to protect yourself, because under U.S law the police have no duty to protect the average person:

“There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov’t) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order”

(Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]).


The Supreme Court last dealt with this issue in 1856; the 1982 decision states the position in modern language. The laws of virtually every state parallel federal law (see JPFO Special Report Dial 911 and Die! covered in Guns & Ammo, July 1992). This has been so ever since the Constitution was adopted in 1791. As a result, the framers of the Second Amendment deliberately created (guaranteed) an individual civil right to be armed. It is your only reliable defense against criminals. United States Gun Control Act ‘68 ties your hands and keeps you from carrying out your legal duty to ensure your own self defense. United States Gun Control Act ‘68 thus undermines a pillar of U.S. law and helps criminals to kill law abiding Americans. Hitler would be pleased.

Thus, United States Gun Control Act ‘68 marked a new approach to “gun control”. It replaced the Federal Firearms Act (June 30, 1938), which was based on the federal power to regulate interstate commerce. The 1938 law required firearms dealers to get a federal license (which then cost $1). Only dealers could ship firearms across state lines. Ordinary people could receive shipments from dealers.

In United States Gun Control Act ‘68 the government required that in almost all cases only dealers could send and receive firearms across state lines. This ended “mail order” sales of firearms by law abiding persons who are not licensed dealers. United States Gun Control Act ‘68 hits you even harder. Congress gave federal bureaucrats in Washington D.C., the power to decide what kinds of firearms you can own. The framers of United States Gun Control Act ‘68 borrowed an idea — that certain firearms are “hunting weapons” — from the Nazi Weapons Law (Section 21 and Section 32 of the Regulations, page 61 and page 73, respectively, of “Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny). The equivalent U.S. term, “sporting purpose,” was used to classify firearms. But it was not defined anywhere in United States Gun Control Act ‘68. Thus, bureaucrats were empowered to ban whole classes of firearms. They have, in fact, done so.

We wanted to know the source of these new ideas. On reading “Dial 911 and Die!” a JPFO member told us he had seen an article — by Alan Stang in ‘Review of the News,’ October 4, 1967 (pages 15-20) — the author of which felt that the Nazi Weapons Law was the model for United States Gun Control Act ‘68. We found the article. But Stang did not reproduce the Nazi law, so we could not check his conclusions.

We started to hunt for the text of the Nazi Weapons Law. We eventually found it, in the law library of an Ivy League university.

Until 1943-44, the German government published its laws and regulations in the ‘Reichsgesetzblatt,’ roughly the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Register. Carefully shelved by law librarians, the 1938 issues of this German government publication had gathered a lot of dust. In the ‘Reichsgesetzblatt’ issue for the week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). It gave Hitler’s Nazi party a stranglehold on the Germans, many of whom did not support the Nazis. We found that the Nazis did not invent “gun control” in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun control and then perfected it: they invented handgun control.

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb “gang activity,” violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? “Gun control” did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they ‘lawfully’ took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not “reliable.” Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other “reliable” people.

The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 — one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany — new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the United States Gun Control Act ‘68, we concluded that the framers of the United States Gun Control Act ‘68 — lacking any basis in American law to sharply cut back the civil rights of law abiding Americans — drew on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.

Finding the Nazi Weapons Law whetted our appetite. We wanted to know who implanted this Nazi cancer in America. We began by probing the backgrounds of lawmakers who championed “gun control”. We focused on those whose bills became part of United States Gun Control Act ‘68. United States Gun Control Act ‘68 as enacted closely tracks proposals dating to August 1963. We felt that if the culprit were a lawmaker — or a congressional staffer — he or she would know Germany, German law and possibly even speak German. He or she probably would have spent time in Germany on business or during military service. Alternatively, if the culprit were not a member of Congress or a staffer, there would be testimony at the hearings to that effect.

Most potential suspects were quickly eliminated; they had no apparent ties to Germany. But one lawmaker caught our attention.

An old “Who’s Who” entry showed he had been a senior member of the U.S. team that prosecuted German war criminals at Nuremberg in 1945-46. Thus, he had lived in Germany just after the Nazi period. His official duties required him to look at Nazi records, including Nazi laws. In 1963 he led the effort to greatly expand the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

We then got a break. We told a legal scholar of our findings. He was intrigued. He sent us an extract from the record of hearings held a few months prior to the enactment of United States Gun Control Act ‘68. At the end of June 1968, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to investigate Juvenile Delinquency — chaired by Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) — held hearings on bills: (1) “To Require the Registration of Firearms” (S.3604). (2) “To Disarm Lawless Persons” (S.3634) and (3) “To Provide for the Establishment of a National Firearms Registry” (S.3637), among others.

U.S. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) testified at these Senate hearings on “gun control”. Senator Joseph D. Tydings (D-MD) chaired some of these hearings, in Dodd’s absence.

Rep. Dingell expressed concern that if firearms registration were required, it might lead to confiscation of firearms, as had happened in Nazi Germany. Tydings angrily accused Rep. Dingell of using “scare tactics”:

“Are you inferring that our system here, gun registration or licensing, would in any way be comparable to the Nazi regime in Germany, where they had a secret police, and a complete takeover?”

Rep. Dingell backed away.

(Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Committee on the Judiciary, 90th Congress, 2nd Session, June 26, 27 and 28 and July 8, 9 and 10. 1968, pp. 479-80, 505-6 cited as Subcommittee Hearings.)

Tydings later inserted into the hearing record various documents, “concerning the history of Nazism and gun confiscation.”

Exhibit No. 62 (see reproduction) is fascinating. This letter — dated July 12, 1968 — is to Subcommittee Chairman Dodd from Lewis C. Coffin, Law Librarian at the Library of Congress. Coffin wrote:


” … we are enclosing herewith a translation of the Law on Weapons of March 18, 1938, prepared by Dr. William Solyom-Fekete of [the European Law Division — ed.] as well as the Xerox of the original German text which you supplied” (Subcommittee Hearings, p. 489, emphasis added).


This letter makes it public knowledge that at the end of June 1968 — 4 months before United States Gun Control Act ‘68 was enacted — Senator Thomas J. Dodd, now deceased, personally owned a copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law.

Why did Dodd own the original German text of any Nazi law? Why did he make known that he owned it?

The Library of Congress then had (and still has) the ‘Reichsgesetzblatt’ in its collection. The Library of Congress translator, Dr. Solyom-Fekete, could easily have used the Library of Congress’ own copy.

Any member of Congress who wanted to read the Nazi Weapons Law need only have asked for it to be produced from the shelves of the Library of Congress and for it to be translated by Library of Congress experts. Why should any member of Congress ever have owned the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law?

Without access to Tom Dodd’s personal papers, archived under his heirs’ control, we unfortunately cannot offer definite answers.

Dodd could have acquired the German text of the Nazi Weapons Law during his time at Nuremberg. But he had no need to do so.

Dodd did not personally handle the prosecution of Nazi Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick, who signed the Nazi Weapons Law. The case against Frick was presented by Robert M.W. Kempner, Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States (see ‘Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal,’ cited as TMWC, Vol. V, pp. 352-67, Nuremberg, Germany, 1947).

Nor should the Nazi Weapons Law otherwise have come to Dodd’s attention. The Nazi Weapons Law was not used as evidence against Frick (see Kempner’s speech, TMWC, V, pp. 352-67 and ‘Index of Laws, Decrees, Orders, Directives, and the Administration of Justice in Nazi Germany and Nazi Dominated Countries’, TMWC, Vol. XXIII, pp. 430-33). The Nazi Weapons Law is not listed among documents submitted as evidence to the Tribunal by the American prosecutors (see Vol. XXIV, pp. 98-169).

The prosecutors at Nuremberg doubtless knew of the Nazi Weapons Law. They probably saw it in the ‘Reichsgesetzblatt.’ On the same day that Nazi Interior Minister Frick signed the Weapons Law, March 18, 1938, he signed another law governing security measures in newly annexed Austria. This law concerning Austria appeared in the ‘Reichsgesetzblatt’ — directly in front of the Weapons Law — and was introduced into evidence at Nuremberg (‘Reichsgesetzblatt’ 1938, I, p. 262; the Nazi Weapons Law was published in the same volume, p. 265; see TMWC, Vol. V, p.358 for reference to law concerning Austria).

Thus, the Nazi Weapons Law appeared to have no historical merit at Nuremberg and should not have attracted anyone’s notice, certainly not to the extent of causing anyone to want to keep a copy of it as a separate document.

If Dodd got his copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law during his time at Nuremberg, it likely was part of a collection of documents, for example, issues of the ‘Reichsgesetzblatt’.

But if he acquired the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law after his service at Nuremberg, he must have done so for a very specific reason. The Nazi Weapons Law plainly did not figure at Nuremberg.

We may safely conclude it had little, if any, interest for those interested in the history of the Nazis’ rise to power. For example, the Nazi Weapons Law is not mentioned at all in William L. Shirer’s very thorough study of Nazi Germany, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’ (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1950).

At the hearings held by Dodd’s subcommittee at the end of June 1968, Rep. Dingell had objected to the firearms registration provision then being discussed. Dodd may have offered his copy of the Nazi Weapons Law to show that the specific proposal did not resemble anything in the Nazi law.

He may not have realized that he was revealing a broader truth; that the whole fabric of United States Gun Control Act ‘68 was based on the Nazi Weapons Law, even if the specific registration proposal was not so based.

Alternatively, Dodd may not have cared whether or not anyone knew that he had the German text of the Nazi Weapons Law. He doubtless knew that months would pass before the hearing record was printed and so generally available for scrutiny. Thus, even if anyone then noticed the parallels between the two laws, the bill would already have become law.

Rep. Dingell does not appear to have pursued the matter: the firearms registration provision was not included in United States Gun Control Act ‘68. The Congress was stampeded on “gun control” by public enthusiasm. Martin Luther King had been murdered on April 4, 1968, and Robert F. Kennedy had been murdered on June 6, 1968.

We are not the first to have seen this hearing record. But we appear to be the first to have recognized its importance. This hearing record suggests strongly that the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) himself implanted the Nazi Weapons Law into American law, or, at very least, helped others to do so.

Now you know the ugly truth about the roots of United States Gun Control Act ‘68. But you need to see — with your own eyes — the hard evidence of the Nazi roots of “gun control” in America presented in “Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny.

If you want to destroy “gun control”, you can use this book to do it.

The Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, cleared the way for World War II and Nazi genocide against the Jews, Gypsies and 7,000,000 other people.



Conrad_73's photo
Sun 03/10/13 02:05 PM




The thought also comes to mine that Hitler considered Jews to be "enemies of the state."

Our government could designate anyone it pleases as "enemies of the State."


Hitler looked at every Nationallity as an enemy of his State during his rein in power. He made an example of the Jewish nationallity because of their belief.

I doubt the U.S Government is going to take that approach. The U.S. Constitution does not entitle the President of the U.S. to be in power during a moment of diagnosed mental illness. The President of the U.S. can after being medically clear resume his position of Head of State; stated in the U.S. Constitution.
Interesting that the US Firearms Act is modeled on Hitler's 1938 Firearms Act!

http://freeplanetickettonorthkorea.tumblr.com/guns-nazi


You certainly did not read what statement the reply was directed towards. Therefore how can you make a remark about another comment.
The Constitution is the protection of the Citizen against the Government,so your post about Government "invoking" the Second Amendment is erroneous,because it is NOT up to Government to do do!

SpicyExcel's photo
Sun 03/10/13 02:15 PM









No matter how one look's a the loss of life or an infringement upon there personal well being it is tragic experience. I beleive we all sympathy's for anyone whose had a criminal act committed against them, family, or friend. When one is fearful of their well being one want's a means to protect them-self. This has alway's been part of human exsistance.

The Second Admendment I believe originally was created for Militia purposes.

Looking through history and the first development of guns (Cannon was the first 1400 cenury) its' purpose was for military use. Looking back in history again at the development of iron (The Iron Age) the purpose of iron was for tools, and armaments. At this time business men were largely fighting and their armament was often the riches and most beautiful. Wealthy individuals' were the only one's who could afford these items'.

Looking back just before the development of the U.S. Constitution the U.S. was defending itself from the Indians' and French which at that time the U.S. had NO organized military. This made it difficult to defend the nation, so a small Militia group was organized of 80 individual's the expanded to around 500.

Originally Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S Constitution had nothing to do with the rigth's to bare arms. It was deveolped for the House of Representatives of several State's and needed to be elected. It stated the AGE one must be to be a Member, Taxes, How many Representatives for 30,000 individuals' and limited the number of Representatives for some States.

Article 2 only had one section 1 which preserved the power President of the U.S. and the Militia of the U.S.

It was only later the issue of the Second Admendment came into interpretation of the "right to bare arm"; which is an open statement for interpretation by many.

To argue this point ONE'S RIGHT TO BARE ARMS' could mean that anyone who has obtained a GUN are by the U.S. Government Rights to be drafted into Military Services without question, since the first part of the Second Admendment states; "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."; the key words' are "...MILITIA AND FREE STATE..." and the later pare "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." that as long as you bare arms you are part of the U.S. Government Armed Forces.

If you bare arms and argue that individuals have the right to bare arms, but your against a military conflict it could then be interpreted that you are an enemy of the U.S. State and Government. The arguement now is are these individuals' under the juridiction of Military Law if they oppose military action by the U.S. Government.

Most guns are developed for military use's and have been throughout history. Gun manufactures' want this debate because it keep's them in business and allow's revenue for further development of armaments' (THIS IS A FACT).

The true questions' should people be discussing are physiology "...The science that deals with the normal functioning of living organisms and their parts....". What causes criminal activity and how to prevent it from occuring, what cause fear in and individual to develope or continue after a tramatic experience etc.

I can state that part of the problem is fear in society to disclose criminal activity out of being ostacized or attached for disclosure of criminal activity.

Guns have a purpose in society if used correctly to defend a State belief or hunting and gathering. Do people honesty need to walk around in fear of being shot intentionally, accidentally, or being a victim of any other crime?



seems to me that they would be creating more criminals by banning guns... then only the criminals would have them...


I believe you did not understand how the Second Admendment can be interpreted of the Federal Government chose to do so in-order too prevent crime and how the Federal Government is influenced in this market.


you can't prevent crime... it's going to happen.. do you think if everyone in the US had a pistol on their side, would there be more or less crime?


Your right crime cannot be prevented entirely there are to many different crimes one can commit.

If eveyone had a pistol on their side you would end up with more crime that's inevidable. People have irrational behaviour and fear. They would use the pistol because their angry; not all would responed this way, but some would. The point of any control is to prevent unstable individuals from possessing a gun or a drug addited having one. It's not to prevent civilized individuals from owning or protecting themselves.

This being said it does not stop the Government from impossing the Second Admendment Right during times of defence. Look at the Vietnam War and the draft's that took place. Some criminals before the courts for gun crimes had the option to join the military rather than prison. Other wars are similar. Which part of the population/society go to war in the better part. Read paragraph 3 of my original statement and analyze what it is saying in regards to modern society.
WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rights are not bestowed on the Citizen by Government!Government doesn't own those Rights!
They are inherent in the Citizen!

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]



Admendment 2: Infringe: "...you can own a pistol..." does not refer to any other type of gun one has the right to bear Quoted by the Supreme Court.






This being said it does not stop the Government from impossing the Second Admendment Right during times of defence. Look at the Vietnam War and the draft's that took place. Some criminals before the courts for gun crimes had the option to join the military rather than prison. Other wars are similar. Which part of the population/society go to war in the better part.



here your not wrong, but not up to date... there has been no draft since then, and they just recently passed a bill to end selective service registration... now they replaced that with promising foreigners citizenship with a service deployment...


"promising foreigners citizenship with a service deployment..." this came into effect after Sept 11, 2001 and only if the immigrant served in the war. These immigrant were asked and given the right to apply for citizenship immediately after their service to the U.S. Government in war. It does not change the formal part of the Constitution written prior too the admendment it only adds to the Aritcle and section inwhich it is applied too.
what does that have to do with anything!
That First Clause is clear enough,except for those little Wannabe Tyrants who fear an Armed Citizen!


Conrad you brought in case law to discuss the issue of whether people have the right to bear arms. The Constitution can only admendments' made by the Federal Government (2/3) and the Senate (3/4) for approval before the President has the choice to sign/pass it or send it back for further discussion. The courts' can only define the deffinition of the words in the Constitution.

I pointed out to you that the Supreme Court defined the word " INFRINGE" which stipulated that people have the right to possess pistols.

I also pointed out that some people are mentally stable and not too have this right infringe upon, while others' are not mentally stable. Your approach is (Regardless of a person's mental stability they should be allowed to bear arms even if they may poss a threat to society. This also mean that you do not consider your personal relationships worthy enough to keep them safe from individuals' who are not mentally stable or drug addict's.).

SpicyExcel's photo
Sun 03/10/13 02:19 PM
Edited by SpicyExcel on Sun 03/10/13 02:56 PM





The thought also comes to mine that Hitler considered Jews to be "enemies of the state."

Our government could designate anyone it pleases as "enemies of the State."


Hitler looked at every Nationallity as an enemy of his State during his rein in power. He made an example of the Jewish nationallity because of their belief.

I doubt the U.S Government is going to take that approach. The U.S. Constitution does not entitle the President of the U.S. to be in power during a moment of diagnosed mental illness. The President of the U.S. can after being medically clear resume his position of Head of State; stated in the U.S. Constitution.
Interesting that the US Firearms Act is modeled on Hitler's 1938 Firearms Act!

http://freeplanetickettonorthkorea.tumblr.com/guns-nazi


You certainly did not read what statement the reply was directed towards. Therefore how can you make a remark about another comment.
The Constitution is the protection of the Citizen against the Government,so your post about Government "invoking" the Second Amendment is erroneous,because it is NOT up to Government to do do!


Conrad I never brought the Nazi or the Jewish people into this conversation. Another question to you is who is responsible for the illegal exportation of guns to other nations. The Government or criminals' and who should accept responsiblity of these illegal exportation the government or the criminals' and private citizens' who see NO benefit in saving lives other than there own. I am not against rational people own guns.

Conrad_73's photo
Sun 03/10/13 02:22 PM










No matter how one look's a the loss of life or an infringement upon there personal well being it is tragic experience. I beleive we all sympathy's for anyone whose had a criminal act committed against them, family, or friend. When one is fearful of their well being one want's a means to protect them-self. This has alway's been part of human exsistance.

The Second Admendment I believe originally was created for Militia purposes.

Looking through history and the first development of guns (Cannon was the first 1400 cenury) its' purpose was for military use. Looking back in history again at the development of iron (The Iron Age) the purpose of iron was for tools, and armaments. At this time business men were largely fighting and their armament was often the riches and most beautiful. Wealthy individuals' were the only one's who could afford these items'.

Looking back just before the development of the U.S. Constitution the U.S. was defending itself from the Indians' and French which at that time the U.S. had NO organized military. This made it difficult to defend the nation, so a small Militia group was organized of 80 individual's the expanded to around 500.

Originally Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S Constitution had nothing to do with the rigth's to bare arms. It was deveolped for the House of Representatives of several State's and needed to be elected. It stated the AGE one must be to be a Member, Taxes, How many Representatives for 30,000 individuals' and limited the number of Representatives for some States.

Article 2 only had one section 1 which preserved the power President of the U.S. and the Militia of the U.S.

It was only later the issue of the Second Admendment came into interpretation of the "right to bare arm"; which is an open statement for interpretation by many.

To argue this point ONE'S RIGHT TO BARE ARMS' could mean that anyone who has obtained a GUN are by the U.S. Government Rights to be drafted into Military Services without question, since the first part of the Second Admendment states; "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."; the key words' are "...MILITIA AND FREE STATE..." and the later pare "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." that as long as you bare arms you are part of the U.S. Government Armed Forces.

If you bare arms and argue that individuals have the right to bare arms, but your against a military conflict it could then be interpreted that you are an enemy of the U.S. State and Government. The arguement now is are these individuals' under the juridiction of Military Law if they oppose military action by the U.S. Government.

Most guns are developed for military use's and have been throughout history. Gun manufactures' want this debate because it keep's them in business and allow's revenue for further development of armaments' (THIS IS A FACT).

The true questions' should people be discussing are physiology "...The science that deals with the normal functioning of living organisms and their parts....". What causes criminal activity and how to prevent it from occuring, what cause fear in and individual to develope or continue after a tramatic experience etc.

I can state that part of the problem is fear in society to disclose criminal activity out of being ostacized or attached for disclosure of criminal activity.

Guns have a purpose in society if used correctly to defend a State belief or hunting and gathering. Do people honesty need to walk around in fear of being shot intentionally, accidentally, or being a victim of any other crime?



seems to me that they would be creating more criminals by banning guns... then only the criminals would have them...


I believe you did not understand how the Second Admendment can be interpreted of the Federal Government chose to do so in-order too prevent crime and how the Federal Government is influenced in this market.


you can't prevent crime... it's going to happen.. do you think if everyone in the US had a pistol on their side, would there be more or less crime?


Your right crime cannot be prevented entirely there are to many different crimes one can commit.

If eveyone had a pistol on their side you would end up with more crime that's inevidable. People have irrational behaviour and fear. They would use the pistol because their angry; not all would responed this way, but some would. The point of any control is to prevent unstable individuals from possessing a gun or a drug addited having one. It's not to prevent civilized individuals from owning or protecting themselves.

This being said it does not stop the Government from impossing the Second Admendment Right during times of defence. Look at the Vietnam War and the draft's that took place. Some criminals before the courts for gun crimes had the option to join the military rather than prison. Other wars are similar. Which part of the population/society go to war in the better part. Read paragraph 3 of my original statement and analyze what it is saying in regards to modern society.
WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rights are not bestowed on the Citizen by Government!Government doesn't own those Rights!
They are inherent in the Citizen!

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]



Admendment 2: Infringe: "...you can own a pistol..." does not refer to any other type of gun one has the right to bear Quoted by the Supreme Court.






This being said it does not stop the Government from impossing the Second Admendment Right during times of defence. Look at the Vietnam War and the draft's that took place. Some criminals before the courts for gun crimes had the option to join the military rather than prison. Other wars are similar. Which part of the population/society go to war in the better part.



here your not wrong, but not up to date... there has been no draft since then, and they just recently passed a bill to end selective service registration... now they replaced that with promising foreigners citizenship with a service deployment...


"promising foreigners citizenship with a service deployment..." this came into effect after Sept 11, 2001 and only if the immigrant served in the war. These immigrant were asked and given the right to apply for citizenship immediately after their service to the U.S. Government in war. It does not change the formal part of the Constitution written prior too the admendment it only adds to the Aritcle and section inwhich it is applied too.
what does that have to do with anything!
That First Clause is clear enough,except for those little Wannabe Tyrants who fear an Armed Citizen!


Conrad you brought in case law to discuss the issue of whether people have the right to bear arms. The Constitution can only admendments' made by the Federal Government (2/3) and the Senate (3/4) for approval before the President has the choice to sign/pass it or send it back for further discussion. The courts' can only define the deffinition of the words in the Constitution.

I pointed out to you that the Supreme Court defined the word " INFRINGE" which stipulated that people have the right to possess pistols.

I also pointed out that some people are mentally stable and not too have this right infringe upon, while others' are not mentally stable. Your approach is (Regardless of a person's mental stability they should be allowed to bear arms even if they may poss a threat to society. This also mean that you do not consider your personal relationships worthy enough to keep them safe from individuals' who are not mentally stable or drug addict's.).
where in Heck does the 2nd specify Pistols,or any other Arms?

Government has no Business diddling with the Constitution,especially not by Presidential Fiat!
Neither has a Majority the right to suspend Rights guaranteed under the Constitution!
US is a Republic,last time I checked,not an Ancient Greek Mobrule Democracy!

Conrad_73's photo
Sun 03/10/13 02:23 PM
These are the people the gun grabbers think should be armed instead of the citizenry!

These 2 women were shot by police because they were in a blue pickup... simply like the one the rogue cop is said to be using.

Shoot 1st ask questions later..... 2 women in the hospital

A second shooting, involving Torrance police officers, occurred about 5:45 a.m. at Flagler Lane and Beryl Street in Torrance. No injuries were reported in that incident.

Chase said that in both instances police came across vehicles they thought were similar to the one Dorner is believed to be driving. Neither vehicle was Dorner's.

Friggin idiots!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/ex-cop-manhunt-newspaper-delivery-women-shot.html