Rahm Emanuel: Take American People Out of 2nd Amendment “Debate”

[dog53]

The gun culture is right about one thing, however. Hitler really did enact a new gun law. In 1938, – well after the NAZIs already had the country in its iron grip. Furthermore, the new law in many ways LOOSENED gun restrictions. For example, it greatly expanded the numbers who were exempt, it lowered the legal age of possession from 20 to 18, and it completely lifted restriction on all guns except handguns, as well as on ammunition.

Given all of this, it’s pretty hard to make a case that “gun control” played a significant role in NAZI conquest. In fact, one might well say that when gun addicts brandish Hitler as a weapon, they are unwittingly arguing against their own cause.

http://propagandapro...itlers-gun-ban/

Dude he loosened it up for the german people. Not GERMAN JEWS. He didnt slaughter Germans he slaughtered JEWS. Those are the people that he disarmed. At least try to make sense ok

[ocdude]

Dude he loosened it up for the german people. Not GERMAN JEWS. He didnt slaughter Germans he slaughtered JEWS. Those are the people that he disarmed. At least try to make sense ok

The German Jews had been disarmed for years before Hitler came to power. He took away MANY rights for the Jews...gun ownership was not one of the rights he took away. He simply failed to loosen the restrictions for them when he LOOSENED the controls for every one else. Having guns would not have saved them....even if every one of them had a gun.

At least TRY to understand history. :unsure:/>

Edited January 18, 2013 by ocdude

[dog53]

The German Jews had been disarmed for years before Hitler came to power. He took away MANY rights for the Jews...gun ownership was not one of the rights he took away. He simply failed to loosen the restrictions for them when he LOOSENED the controls for every one else. Having guns would not have saved them....even if every one of them had a gun.

At least TRY to understand history. />

Well at least you know something about something cause you sure as hell dont know a thing about firearms. Stick to history dude

Have a good nite oc

see ya around

Edited January 18, 2013 by dog53

[ocdude]

Dude he loosened it up for the german people. Not GERMAN JEWS. He didnt slaughter Germans he slaughtered JEWS. Those are the people that he disarmed. At least try to make sense ok

As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

[parmenio]

BEWARE..., you folks need to know the TRUTH. We now have an administraton that is MARXIST.

[Slaydadea]

You do have a point.......No way to gun down an abortion doctor without a gun.

GO RV, then BV

That's right, so you beat him to death with a baseball bat! No bat? Use a crowbar? Use your fists.

[parmenio]

That's right, so you beat him to death with a baseball bat! No bat? Use a crowbar? Use your fists.

You're right! As long as it saves the life of ONE infant!!

[MyLadiesDaddy]

Marxists are great in preaching to others about saving lives by eliminating guns. They should look themselves in the mirror. How about eliminating abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood for killing millions of innocent babies. Surely we can save "one life"!

Amen. Abortion is the root cause of all that is wrong with this country.

You don't just murder 60million + babies and get away with it. While we

have sat by and done nothing as a reasonable nation about these homicide

clinics, we have allowed the stupid people to reduce the value of human life

to near zero. Unless, of course, it's there own. These idiots claim to be enlightened

yet can't even tell the difference between right and wrong. And now is the time for

America to pay for her sins. The government we have doesn't have to follow the

constitution because it is not the constitutional system that was originally set up.

That system was destroyed by Lincoln in 1862.The government we have is purposely

trying to get it's citizens to go to war against each other and against the government.

And it is sad to say but they seem to be getting what they want. Why, you ask? In this

coming war the population of this country will be reduced by millions. Something

Liberal atheist want. And I assure you that when Obama made the statement in his

first election about Christians clinging to their bibles and guns, he put us Christians

on notice. To Liberals we are the enemy, and they will stop at nothing to win this war.

All the while we as Christians have forgotten that God has repeatedly called people of

faith to completely wipe out entire nations that not only reject God but are antagonistic

toward him. No superpower nation in the history of this word has ever remained as such

once they turn there back on God. NOT ONE.

War is coming, and this nation will not be a superpower when it is over. Liberals will finally

get what they truly want, equality of all. We will all be poor, homeless, and hungry begging

what ever form of government is left for scraps. But that is what this nation deserves, just ask

the souls of those 60 million babies screaming to God for justice.

[uncirculd]

My question is, what are they doing about making schools safer? The only thing they appear to be doing is taking it out on and punishing "law abiding" citizens. None of these shooters had the guns legally. Criminal will not give a crap about more restrictions and laws. It's only the good law abiding citizens that have to be scrutinized over what criminals are doing. Only in America do we punish the good. It will never get down to the point of taking the guns away, that would mean ONLY the criminals would have them. And we as citizens, ain't going for it.

I agree with the statement that, a good guy with a gun at the schools would have stopped these violent crazed criminals.

Hollywood and Gamers are off the hook. I guess they are saving that for the next round.

[billjr]

Ocdude, First why don't they enforce the laws that are all ready established. Second our military is not going to protect you from our goverment, oh yea that must be what the 2nd amendment is there for. Third, got some news for you. I can own a machine gun if I chose. I have my federal stamp and Pennsylvania law permits me to do so. Not all states have the same gun restrictions.

[kid4dinar]

I honestly believe that Obama knows he has no chance to win this arguement.

He throws a focul point out and says watch this....

Meantime he is doing what he really doent want any one to see.

He is growing bigger govt and will impose charges to buy a gun a license to buy ammo.

Ok hear me out.

You have to be registered to purchase ammo with a permit. You pay for the permit AND he feds monitor how much ammo you buy.

So you pay to buy ammo no with a tax increase on the ammo, and of course an additional tax on all guns sold.

He will do anything to increase the size of govt and increase tax revenue to spend more.

11 m just to study the affect of owning a gun.

WAKE UP PEOPLE

[uncirculd]

I honestly believe that Obama knows he has no chance to win this arguement.

He throws a focul point out and says watch this....

Meantime he is doing what he really doent want any one to see.

He is growing bigger govt and will impose charges to buy a gun a license to buy ammo.

Ok hear me out.

You have to be registered to purchase ammo with a permit. You pay for the permit AND he feds monitor how much ammo you buy.

So you pay to buy ammo no with a tax increase on the ammo, and of course an additional tax on all guns sold.

He will do anything to increase the size of govt and increase tax revenue to spend more.

11 m just to study the affect of owning a gun.

WAKE UP PEOPLE

Yep, I tend to agree with this. It would be nice if they came to us peons so we could show them how to balance a budget with just peanuts. We are doing it, those career criminals we call the congress are beyond hope. The laws are made for us not them. Justice means just us!

[ocdude]

My question is, what are they doing about making schools safer? The only thing they appear to be doing is taking it out on and punishing "law abiding" citizens. None of these shooters had the guns legally.

The guns used at Newtown were legally owned and registered. All of the guns used in Aurora were legally purchased as well.

Criminal will not give a crap about more restrictions and laws. It's only the good law abiding citizens that have to be scrutinized over what criminals are doing. Only in America do we punish the good. It will never get down to the point of taking the guns away, that would mean ONLY the criminals would have them.

NO ONE IS TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS.

And we as citizens, ain't going for it.

I agree with the statement that, a good guy with a gun at the schools would have stopped these violent crazed criminals.

You mean...like the good guys at Columbine and Fort Hood?? Fort Hood was full of highly trained and well weaponized soldiers....and yet Hasan still managed to kill 12 people and wound 30. There was so much blood that nurses were slipping in it trying to get to wounded.

Hollywood and Gamers are off the hook. I guess they are saving that for the next round. Nah...that's who the NRA is blaming.

Ocdude, First why don't they enforce the laws that are all ready established.

They do.

Second our military is not going to protect you from our goverment, oh yea that must be what the 2nd amendment is there for.

If you believe you are in danger from the government, why are you still here? The second amendment does NOT mean that you can commit treason.

Third, got some news for you. I can own a machine gun if I chose. I have my federal stamp and Pennsylvania law permits me to do so. Not all states have the same gun restrictions.

A civilian cannot purchase a machine gun that was not registered as a privately held weapon prior to 1986. That means all the nifty new full-auto weapons are off limits unless you are a law enforcement agency (individual officers can't buy them, either) or a Class III firearms dealer who acquires them as demonstration weapons for law enforcement customers.FEDERAL law.

Edited January 19, 2013 by ocdude

[billjr]

Ocdude, never once said I believed I was in danger or mentioned treason but you obviously do not understand the reason for the 2nd amendment. It being for the protection of the people against a tyrannical goverment. By the way, what part of " SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED " do you not understand? I also said machine gun, as according to the law pre 1986, M-16 for example. They tend to be rather expensive but if I chose too I can legally own one.

[ocdude]

Ocdude, never once said I believed I was in danger or mentioned treason but you obviously do not understand the reason for the 2nd amendment. It being for the protection of the people against a tyrannical goverment.

Calling the government tyrannical and saying that you need guns to protect yourself from it is treason...and no, that was NOT the reason for the 2nd amendment. It was for the REGULATED MILITIA.To protect THIS COUNTRY from other countries.

By the way, what part of " SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED " do you not understand? I also said machine gun, as according to the law pre 1986, M-16 for example. They tend to be rather expensive but if I chose too I can legally own one.

Not being able to own a machine gun made after 1986 does not infringe on your 2nd amendment right and neither does regulating semi automatic weapons. You can still play with your other guns. The SC has already ruled that a class of weapon CAN be banned without infringing on anyone's rights.

[pattyangel]

Wow, wow, I read the whole 9 pages of this thread and I am worn out. I'm disgusted with how some feel about making some changes to the 2nd Amendment and things will be fine. People, until we control the evil in this world, nothing is going to change no matter how many times we make changes in the laws.

If it was my husband making such comments, I would deeply be disappointed. I would feel for my safety, my family's safety. Some know that I was assaulted years back and let me tell you I was a law abiding citizen and I would still be a law abiding citizen if I had a weapon. It's the evil ones that are not law abiding. That is where we need to begin in making changes. Read my words, it's not the law abiding citizens!!!!

[ronbo62]

It was adopted on December 15, 1791,

You guys keep holding on to a law that was written over 200 years ago, in my opinion things were a little different back then, this law made sense for that time, things have changed since then at least that's what I think, it's time to let go of this old law and change it to today's sociaty.

A lot of laws have changed and this one is way over due, it's time for the NRA to get out of polititians pocket.

Think about our kids safety not the pleasure of having guns on every corner of every street in the US.

Since the shoothing of Sandy Hook over 900 people have been killed in the US if this doesn't bother you I don't know what will.

Wake up for crying out loud. This crap is what the Politicians want. Have you ever listened to alex jones. This is a war on our Nation. On every red blooded American that has a brain and can realize that this nation is slipping into the S--ter and will disappear if we don't start waking up and realizing that these Tyrants will sell our Country out. It has already started with the United Nations telling us that our property is theirs. Get your nose out of main street media and realize these people in the Gov, aren't for you or me. But their own personal agenda. Go RV

[uncirculd]

Ocdude, never once said I believed I was in danger or mentioned treason but you obviously do not understand the reason for the 2nd amendment. It being for the protection of the people against a tyrannical goverment. By the way, what part of " SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED " do you not understand? I also said machine gun, as according to the law pre 1986, M-16 for example. They tend to be rather expensive but if I chose too I can legally own one.

Yep, it's government we need to worry about. Everytime there is a mass shooting by a criminal, the government wants to put more restrictions on law abiding citizens. Has anyone noticed that every time this happens and the government starts threatening more restrictions; more and more folks flood to the gun shops and buy guns. They are not afraid of criminals, it's GOVERNMENT you need to be afraid of.

Just like they do business in the congress, so will they sell the souls of the US. I am not willing!

They will hear my voice and they will find resistance in me. I did not vote for these career criminals.

I don't remember voting for them to get a raise, or to pick away at my liberties and make executive orders contrary to the Constitution. (old and new)

Edited January 19, 2013 by uncirculd

[TonyDownTheShore]

You guys and gals that think that we don't need changes in the gun laws need to wake up, I haven't read anything anywhere that says if you're a lawabiding citizen the government is coming to your house knocking down your door and taking your guns and making you a slave, you need to stop reading fiction stories the NRA puts out to brain wash you, I repeat if you're a law abiding citizen you have nothing to worry about, there are millions of people in this country that live a normal life without a gun, and if my wife told I needed a gun I'd be upset, I pay taxes so I have protection from the army and the police, read the article and see for yourself that we can live without guns in every house in this country.

The Japan lesson: Can America learn from the country that has almost zero gun deaths?

Posted by Max Fisher on December 14, 2012 at 3:27 pm

• Text Size
• Print
• Reprints

• Share:
• [/url]
• More »
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Delicious

Japanese museum-goers look at displays of old North Korean rifles in Tokyo. (Chiaki Tsukumo — Associated Press)

On Friday, 27 Americans, including 18 children, joined the casualties making up the highest gun-related death rate in the developed world. Those who died Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary School are, statistically speaking, a drop in the bucket. So was the .223-caliber rifle that killed them. The United States of America has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, followed by Yemen, where it is about half.

In July, after a horrific shooting at a Colorado movie theater, as journalists and others began asking whether America’s unique and extraordinary gun laws had anything to do with its unique and extraordinary rate of gun-related deaths, I looked into Japan’s gun laws in an article for TheAtlantic.com.

The contrast between the United States and Japan could not be starker. If the United States has the loosest gun laws in the developed world, then Japan has the strictest. Most guns are illegal, with onerous restrictions on the few that are legal. Police also have far broader search-and-seizure powers. But the country also has a remarkably low rate of firearm deaths. In 2008, when the United States experienced over 12,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 11, or fewer than half as many killed Friday in Newtown, Conn. That same year in the United States, 587 were killed just by accidental gun discharges. In 2006 in Japan, a nation of 128 million people, only two were killed by guns.

Here are some excerpts from what I wrote in July about the lessons of Japan’s remarkably strict, but breathtakingly effective, gun control laws.

The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. …

First, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years. …

Japanese law, however, starts with the

1958 act

stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it’s worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side. …

Even the police did not carry firearms themselves until, in 1946, the American occupation authority ordered them to. Now, Japanese police receive more hours of training than their American counterparts, are forbidden from carrying off-duty, and invest hours in studying martial arts. …

The Japanese and American ways of thinking about crime, privacy, and police powers are so different — and Japan is such a generally peaceful country — that it’s functionally impossible to fully isolate and compare the two gun control regiments. It’s not much easier to balance the costs and benefits of Japan’s unusual approach, which helps keep its murder rate at the

second-lowest in the world

, though at the cost of restrictions that [an historian] calls a “police state,” a worrying suggestion that it hands the government too much power over its citizens.

The lessons for the United States here are potentially quite thorny. Japan’s ultra-strict gun laws, and its police powers to enforce them, require substantial sacrifices in an area that American political culture, and indeed American culture, consider sacrosanct: individual liberty. That U.S. firearm law developed to protect gun rights first and public safety second, whereas Japan privileged public safety, is both telling and reflects feelings and priorities that go much deeper than just this one issue. That’s not something that can be reversed with a single bill or news conference, not that I’m arguing it should be. The individual liberty vs. public safety trade-off is not an easy one to make, and though Japan’s policy does appear to save thousands of lives when compared to America’s, it comes at real costs.

What is perhaps most revealing about looking at Japan’s gun laws, and seeing what makes them the most extreme gun restrictions in the developed world, is that it gives you a sense, for better or worse, of what American gun laws look like to everyone else.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/

[TonyDownTheShore]

Do you want to know why NRA fights so you can keep buying guns and puts out stories that the governemet wants to take over your life, here's why

NRA Salaries!

This is the result of a Google search but was posted at the forum that BillT chatted about.

Do you consider the salary levels to be excessive for a organization with an annual budget in the 120 million range?

Here is the article"

Taking aim at the NRA’s high salaries

Posted December 22nd, 2007 at 9:30 am

The Washington Post ran an interesting opinion column recently by Richard Feldman, a former lobbyist for the National Rifle Association who has become critical of the organization.

Feldman slams the NRA for eschewing all forms of compromise and taking extreme positions. He speculates that top NRA executives actually want to keep conflict over guns alive because it’s good for fundraising — and the personal bottom lines of the NRA’s top leaders. Feldman writes:

Harlon B. Carter, who created the modern NRA in the 1970s, earned about $70,000 a year (about $200,000 in today’s dollars) as executive vice president and was driven to meetings in the company Chevrolet.

Wayne LaPierre, who currently sits upon the executive vice president throne, pocketed about $950,000 in 2005. The parking lot at the association’s twin-glass-towered headquarters off Interstate 66 in Virginia is filled with shiny new BMWs and Mercedes-Benzes

.

What’s unseemly about the stratospheric six-figure salaries flowing into NRA leadership wallets is that the cash comes from hundreds of thousands of members who are hard pressed to write $35 annual membership renewal checks or send an extra $10 or $20 to the NRA Political Victory Fund to protect their guns.

I got curious after reading those figures. Non-profit groups holding a 501 ©(3) status are required to fill out a document called a Form 990 every year. It’s a detailed financial statement, and by law these groups are required to make it available to the public.

This means you can stop by the office of a non-profit group and ask to see its 990. You can also request a copy by mail, but this takes time, and the organization is allowed to charge you a “reasonable” fee for copying and mailing.

The rise of the web has made things a little easier. Several groups have come along that post 990s online. One of the best is Guidestar. (Free registration is required to look at material on Guidestar.)

One of the things the 990 lists is the organization’s top five salaries, so I pulled up the NRA’s most recent report.

It dates from 2004. At that time, LaPierre’s salary was listed at $633,823. (This is salary only and does not include other forms of compensation, such as health care.) The four salaries below him were all above $300,000, with two approaching $400,000.

That was three years ago. I think we can assume they’ve gone up since then.

The term “six-figure salary” can be a deceptive. The U.S. median income in 2006 was $48,200. In some regions of the country, you could live on that quite well; in others it would be a stretch. In Washington and its surrounding suburbs, where many non-profits are located, an executive “six-figure salary” in the low 100s would not be considered excessive. In the D.C. area, even a modest house in a marginal suburb now costs at least half a million dollars.

But $950,000? That’s excessive by non-profit standards anywhere. It might be acceptable in the corporate world, but the NRA isn’t the corporate world. It’s a non-profit group. People who work for non-profits forgo higher salaries for the less tangible benefits offered by public advocacy.

Non-profit organizations are closely regulated by the Internal Revenue Service. A standard rule is that excessive compensation is a red flag that something is not right. In fact, the IRS in August of 2004 launched an effort to crack down on exorbitant salaries in the non-profit world.

“We are concerned that some charities and private foundations are abusing their tax-exempt status by paying exorbitant compensation to their officers and others,” said Mark W. Everson, IRS commissioner at the time, in a press release.

I do not know what, if anything, ever became of that initiative. But looking at these NRA salaries, I can only conclude that more work needs to be done. I support the NRA’s right to promote its point of view, although I disagree with it. I simply see no reason why its top leaders should be permitted to loot a non-profit in the process.

http://www.nationalgunforum.com/general-gun-discussion/3502-nra-salaries.html