Author Topic: Night of the Broken Glass (Read 2681 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #90 on:** September 05, 2007, 09:31:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
it is absolutely true

lazs

I do not think that means what you think it means..

Charon · « **Reply #91 on:** September 05, 2007, 09:54:27 PM »

You know. You actually can own an anti tank gun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s6_vufc1ns

Now, it's more of a privilege than a right, as a Class III destructive device. And I have argued that while a select fire rifle is covered under the 2nd Amendment ordnance is not judging by the language used by the founders (arms in hand, drilling, etc.), dictionary definitions of the period (a stand of arms, for example, as a musket and personal gear) and a distinction drawn between arms and cannon/artillery in the military logistics documents of the day. There are those who disagree and feel a tactical nuke is covered under the Second but they have more emotion than fact and seem to have an ultra libertarian/anarcist view of the founders that does not ring true.

But then, for reasons I have outlined (as stated by Madison) you don't really need artillery.

Still, that 90 mm is a neat toy. There are others that rebuild and fire recoilless rifles for fun. Typically solid shot since any explosive shot would be considered a separate DD with all the registration that entails.

Charon

Angus · « **Reply #92 on:** September 06, 2007, 03:15:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bustr
Lazs vs an army.
"angus... if I need anti tank stuff I would get it."

Would you be able to go shopping with a tank at yer door?
(looking at you through IR anyway)

Angus,

By this point you are simply baiting Laz.

Neither one of us (3) have any idea what will or would happen if an American president made an executive decree for the in-country military to disarm the American population. We are a country of 300+M you are from an island of aprox. 300k.

I have to think even the citizens of Iceland would put up a fight if your next leader issued an order for the police and military to place the country under military law indefinately. In the same spirit I have to ask you:

"Do you hate the United States so much that in jest you would wish us defeat and slavery in a fantasy circemsatnce that you yourself in your own country would resist to the death? Or would you personaly help your government inslave your country men to keep your own freedom?" [/B][/QUOTE]

Quick answer:
I think the USA is not so unique that it can claim that bad things cannot happen in the country, - in the flavour of military law. And I don't think like Lazs seems to do, that the solution to all problems it to lock yourself up with with your arsenal.
With that, I leave for Germany. I am looking into some historical things, maybe meeting an old LW ace, maybe visiting castle Colditz.....

P.S. I don't hate the USA. But that doesn't mean that USA is above critizism.

lazs2 · « **Reply #93 on:** September 06, 2007, 08:24:27 AM »

no angus.. you are wrong on all counts... they US is indeed unique for one. the other is that you have not or no one else has explained to me a situation where me being unarmed would be better than me being armed.

I think a civil war is the most likely scenario... from full blown to halfassed... In that case.. you would indeed be better off "sitting home with your arsenal" if you home happened to be somewhere not in the large cities.

The biggest worry to me would be roving bands of criminals and rioters. The weapons most Americans have would be more than sufficient for that.

making an anti tank round is pretty easy... a bottle...some soap and some gasoline... or... just pick up something more sophisticated that some scared or dead guy dropped... or... buy it from some underfed soldier.

name the exact situation and I can give an answer but... for the most part... simply being armed is the minimum first step. You need to be flexible from there.

Like I said.. it will be the criminal and the rioter that would be the main problem in any case.

Like charon said... if the government fought it's people like they fight everyone else.... no problem... If they fight like some eurobarbarians... then they will just get a larger portion of the population against em with each atrocity.

you got nothing.

lazs

Hap · « **Reply #94 on:** September 06, 2007, 09:13:15 AM »

Viking · « **Reply #95 on:** September 06, 2007, 09:57:32 AM »

So Storch is a bloody Cuban eh? Who would have guessed that?

Angus · « **Reply #96 on:** September 19, 2007, 07:18:15 PM »

I am back.
So Lazs...where to begin...? I am wrong on all accounts... Okay, try me:
"The biggest worry to me would be roving bands of criminals and rioters. The weapons most Americans have would be more than sufficient for that."

Your bands of rovers tend to be armed. In crisis such as just a power out, the USA of all western nations has a tendency to go "bad" very quickly. Rovers, yes, and armed.

"making an anti tank round is pretty easy... a bottle...some soap and some gasoline... or... just pick up something more sophisticated that some scared or dead guy dropped... or... buy it from some underfed soldier"

Tried my first one when I was 14. However, the US tanks tend to survive in .....Iraq. I still think they know more than I did, or even you.....

Now, if you have noticed through all these gun-control threads, something as my point, I will clarify it.

I think gun control is necessary for limiting guns in the wrong hands. Seems to work in many countries. So, the person having the easiest time of aquiring a gun is the ordinary Joe. And in a civil war, an honest Joe can be expected to have a gun....

Then to the Crystal night. And the USA. And the Freedom. And the Constitution.....
The Nazi climb to power was very much about a target group that increasingly got blamed and harassed, restricted, watched, interrogated, jailed, limited, then stripped, dumped to a certain number, then murdered.
How many steps of those did the USA take during the communist hunts? You know, no W-European state has come that far into the regime of totalitarianism after WW2.....

lazs2 · « **Reply #97 on:** September 20, 2007, 09:05:45 AM »

angus.. now you are getting it.. no matter what the situation... it is better to be armed than not.

Bands of criminals will not have the cohesion to take the kind of loses me and mine will hand out.. and sill persist...they will go look for people you have convinced do not need to be armed.

I think we agree that guns should not be in the wrong hands... the insane and the child and people serving time in prison are the wrong hands... other than that... I can't think of any one else who fits the "wrong hands" idea you have..

The democrats say the same thing as you... they tell America that they just want to keep guns out of "the wrong hands" what I tell everyone here is...

Guess what.... yours are "the wrong hands".

you also prove my point with your little history lesson.... if the rise of communism in the US in the 40's (real or perceived) were a good excuse to ban guns then we would end up like england with their fear in the 20's It is indeed good that our rights are protected by the constitution.

I sure wouldn't want you choosing who could have what guns. end up that only you and a few friends of yours would have em. and of course.. the government and criminals.

lazs

Angus · « **Reply #98 on:** September 21, 2007, 12:23:52 PM »

Lazs....you confuse me with a paradoxic text.
Here:
"I think we agree that guns should not be in the wrong hands... the insane and the child and people serving time in prison are the wrong hands... other than that... I can't think of any one else who fits the "wrong hands" idea you have.."

Okay, we agree that guns should not be in the wrong hands. That means some kind of a gun control. Then you say:

"I sure wouldn't want you choosing who could have what guns. end up that only you and a few friends of yours would have em. and of course.. the government and criminals."

You have read my point on this several times.
Again.
1: clear criminal record
2: 2 clear guarantors
3: a course that you pass
4: an interview with the head of the local police, - that you pass

And if you pass 3 guns, you need to have a locker for storage.

So, gun control is ALL ABOUT keeping guns off the market, and stuck to the right hands. I happen to pass, so I have guns, and am looking into more guns! However, the Polish tennant in the basement can't have one because he is a foreigner. And many a ruffian I know cannot either, for they have forfeited their right for a gun by getting a sentence and thereby being listed in the criminal record.
IMHO not bad.

Then on to the broken glass..
"you also prove my point with your little history lesson.... if the rise of communism in the US in the 40's (real or perceived) were a good excuse to ban guns then we would end up like england with their fear in the 20's It is indeed good that our rights are protected by the constitution."

Was there a rise of communism?
My point was that your constitution allowed the percecution (including interrogations, jailing, editing etc) of a group of folks. The "red scare" allowed the government in the land of free to act in a Nazy-way. And by the way, that was in the fifties, not the forties. (History lesson

).
So, there was a target group, and the target group got persecuted. Almost 100 years after slavery (which demanded an amendment to the constitution?), and yet way before there was full rights to coloured people.

But of course the right of the gun will always prevent such....unjustice....

lazs2 · « **Reply #99 on:** September 21, 2007, 02:45:25 PM »

angus.. no.. we do not agree... my version of gun control was that children and the insane could not purchase them nor could criminals in prison have them.

you went off on a whole set of rules beyond that... who is a police chief to decide if I have a gun or not? he doesn't even know me and he is no better judge of insanity or age than anyone else in the world.

as for criminal record.... who cares... serve your time and get your gun back.

I don't know what "2 clear guarantors" means

A course that you pass? no need... good idea but... we used to have the NRA come to schools to teach gun safety but the liberals banned em.

as for communism... yes, after the russian revolution in 1917 communism was at it's peak... it was very popular in the 20's in england and a scare here in the 40's and 50's ... governments were worried.

lazs

Angus · « **Reply #100 on:** September 22, 2007, 03:58:42 AM »

The chief of police will ask you some easy questions, - at least it was that way when I got my licence.
It's about you realizing the responsibility and possible dangers in using firearms, such as ranges, barrel traverse in a crowd of peope, safety etc. You have to be an idiot to flush that one, which is absolutely what it is all about.
Crime record will get you properly banned AFAIK. That is however serious crime with a sentence, not a tax issue or something like that. Bottom line, if you get sentenced for say robbery or murder you have forfeited your right to own a gun.
2 clear guarantors means you have to get 2 people with a clear crime record to sign for you as a person responsible enough to have a gun. Again, if you won't find any, you probably shouldn't have a gun...
And the course will teach you useful things and make it very easy for you to answer some basic questions which the police will ask you

Foreigners will not be able to own guns AFAIK. There are some exclusions in the tourism regarding hunting, - I think that is just a matter of paperwork.
Do you have cop-fobia BTW?

Then the commies. It was also very popular in france in the 30's and 40's. You had commies all over the world for that sake, and I know loads of old commies. And Boroda is on the forum too!
Anyway, communism is a political idea, so we as well as many nations had those running for election just like other parties. Then they changed names, - socialists, left-something, labour this-or-that etc. etc. But the botom line is though, that being a group of their own in the USA led to persecutions unique in the western world. It was possible to apply that much authority by the government within the frame of the constitution as it seems. So basically you should not try to mock the Yu-O-Peeans with their strict rules and lack of freedom.....

lazs2 · « **Reply #101 on:** September 23, 2007, 10:29:23 AM »

angus... we have instant background checks right now... your quaint methods of having some bloated idiot of a police chief and two other idiots sign for you is pretty outdated and unfair.

Everyone gets asked the same questions... same form... for background checks.

Some of the questions should be ignored tho. I don't care if you were a convict before for instance.

At that point you should be able to own any "arms"... that would include machine guns but not explosive devices that did more than send a projectile.

There would be storage laws for neighborhoods that would be only for fire hazard... nothing else... gross negligence would still be such... like leaving a running chain saw on the front lawn should be illegal but having someone break in to steal it would not be a crime for the victim.

There would be no firearms on any "banned" list including 20 mm cannon without explosive rounds.

lazs

Angus · « **Reply #102 on:** September 23, 2007, 11:02:40 AM »

Chief of local police asks routine questions. To become one, it is rather recommended not to be a bloating idiot. It is also recommended NOT to hand out guns to bloated idiots.
Handguns and automatic rifles are banned, so are very big calibers I belive. However there are exceptions.
1. gunclub membership allows handgun training. You just can't bring it home...
2. licensed exterminators and gunsmiths have licence for more. Not sure how it works. I have seen .45's etc, and even a gun from 1847 in the hands of those.

BTW, A friend of mine who lives in the USA (studying) bought himself a .45 on a gunfair without showing any paper at all.

Well. all different environment. Be happy with your law, I'll be happy with mine, as well as the statistics.

AKIron · « **Reply #103 on:** September 23, 2007, 11:14:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Chief of local police asks routine questions. To become one, it is rather recommended not to be a bloating idiot. It is also recommended NOT to hand out guns to bloated idiots.
Handguns and automatic rifles are banned, so are very big calibers I belive. However there are exceptions.
1. gunclub membership allows handgun training. You just can't bring it home...
2. licensed exterminators and gunsmiths have licence for more. Not sure how it works. I have seen .45's etc, and even a gun from 1847 in the hands of those.

BTW, A friend of mine who lives in the USA (studying) bought himself a .45 on a gunfair without showing any paper at all.

Well. all different environment. Be happy with your law, I'll be happy with mine, as well as the statistics.

Ther statistics have nothing to do with the laws.

lazs2 · « **Reply #104 on:** September 23, 2007, 11:23:24 AM »

angus... your friend had to have passed a background check. this is infinetely more fair and efficient than some idiot police chief asking some oral questions and looking squinty eyed at you to see if you are telling the truth or not.

as for the statistics... hasn't it been established that you have a higher crime rate than one of our states where guns laws are more constitutional?

lazs