8-Year-Old Suspended Over Gun-Shaped Pop-Tart Gets Lifetime NRA Membership

CDTA · June 3, 2013

Hey, Joe 909, today's Democrats, and liberals are nowhere close to being tyrannical, fascists, or authoritarians. Conservatives are, though.

Cons like you supported the fascist states of Latin America, like Guatemala, where my parents come from. Guatemala had a democratically elected Communist president, and what did conservatives and anti-Communists like you, who supposedly love democracy, do? Overthrow him, and put a little regime that was friendly toward the Capitalists that you love. Because of you, my parent's country was turned into a damn banana republic. An American banana company was in charge. That's why my fellow Mayans were killed. Not because of gun control, but because the fascists protected American capital interests. And conservatives supported it, and they still do. The fact that these countries had strong militaries, were nuts for guns, and hated ethnic minorities shows show you that regardless of gun control measures, that pro-gunners are the more dangerous ones. Aren't Republicans and conservatives always the ones who want to have bigger and stronger militaries? And don't talk about my Guatemala and the other countries like that, as if you actually feel sorry for them.

You know what is in common in the situations you outlined? The oppressors always went after the minorities, like how the conservatives try to actively go after blacks and Hispanics, socialists, and etc. Liberals are the reason why we had Civil Rights, why slavery and shit like that no longer exists, and why blacks and Latinos even have a chance to be Republicans. Liberals try to integrate minorities into society, but conservatives try to segregate them and keep them in their place.

Cons like you hate foreigners and try to restrict immigration in anyway possible, even when your grandparents themselves were foreigners. Hypocrite. Your grandparents didn't have to go to the same shit my parents had to go through. They had it easy, or easier than today's immigrants have it. They went through less hoops than today's ones did. Cons want to make it hard for hardworking immigrants to get in. They try to make the laws restrictive to weed out poorer ones and get as little immigrants as possible. Then you'll point to your laws and feel great about getting one immigrant less into the country. You'll say, "My grandparents came here legally and today's immigrants didn't, so they don't deserve anything". But only because today's laws are a hell of a lot more restrictive than in the past. Are you afraid that they'll "steal" jobs from citizens and the dozens of friends you love talking about? Oh please, they have so many more job and career opportunities than illegals have. They shouldn't be whining.

Thousands can get, and came, here legally. But millions are here illegally and can't afford the money or time. Or they can't get spots. How about loosening the restrictions? Oh, that's right, then we'd be "breaking the law" and we'd be "rewarding" them. You wouldn't be singing that tune you're singing if your ancestors had been subjected to today's laws. What I find funny about those immigrants that wait in the line that you like to point out is that they are technically illegal until they get citizenship or papers. I'll also point out that despite reports, illegal immigrants do pay taxes. I know many who do. Otherwise, they'd receive visits from the IRS. Meaning that non-citizens will be paying for ungrateful people like you. And about this IRS affair, the IRS should have gone after anyone, not just the Tea Party. But to be fair, the Tea Party and the Republicans have ideologies based on not paying taxes. What did you expect? The IRS gets stronger the more people try to evade taxes. Figure that one, Joe 909.

Now, I've seen your posts, and only when a minority is a murderer to you get to call him a thug or a piece of crap. Remember Dorner? Or the guy who shot the cop and motorist in Nassau?

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/39581-career-woes-perceived-racism-fuel-ex-cops-anger/page-6?do=findComment&comment=645313

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/37786-nassau-county-cop-motorist-murdered-on-cross-island-pwy-on-queens-border/?do=findComment&comment=599428

But not a single bad word or intention for the Newtown murderer, the Colorado shooter, or for the Boston terrorists. All white (even those Muslim terrorists). No scumbag, no savage, or no frying to do for them, even when they each killed and hurt more people than Dorner and the other man. You're just a typical bigoted, prejudiced, paranoid conservative lunatic. Have fun drinking your Kool-Aid. I'll be having fun drinking my Communist-infected fluoride water.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the Nazi control laws, how about some actual facts, Joe?

http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html

End of rant.

oh my

Phantom909 · June 3, 2013

go 86

typical racist rant by someone who hates american freedoms, yet stays here and reaps the benefits of america. you keep pushing that revisionist history but the facts are that liberal democrats are the ones who keep minorites down, not conservatives. take a look at detroit, under liberal democrat control since 1962. the liberal democrat mantra of tax tax tax spend spend spend has seen detroit, once a proud city turn into a city with no hope, how about chicago, liberal democrat rule since 1933, kids are getting shot everyday there, and i guarentee none of the shooters are members of the nra, yet we dont see your liberal masterminds in the streets trying to stop it, they just go after law abiding americans, so your bullshit is just bullshit.

i read that article by william pierce before, hes just another liberal gun hating hack, i say that because he forgot to mention this law that was put in by the nazi`s on november 11, 1938, the day after kristallnach

Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons 11 November 1938 With a basis in §31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and §9 of the Führer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:

§1
Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

§2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

§3
The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in §1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

§4
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

§5
For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.

§6
This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.

Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior
Frick

gee, wonder why he left that out, typical liberal socialist media lying to the people

and btw my ancestors were immigrants, my dads side came over from ireland in the 1840`s during the irish potato famine, my mom`s side came over in 1897 from poland. they came here legally, they followed the laws that were in place at the time because they respected this country`s sovereignty they worked hard and never had government handouts, the criminal aliens today dont respect our laws and soveriegnty. i am and no conservative is against legal immigration, we are against people who dont respect our laws and try to tell us law abiding citizens that they deserve a pass, sorry it dont work that way

and again let me ask you a question, if you hate america and our capitalist system so much why are you here, why dont you go live someplace where you can enjoy your communist utopia, say like north korea, or cuba

joe

Threxx · June 3, 2013

He left that out because it was a typical Nazi laws: Directed at taking out a SPECIFIC PEOPLE's freedoms, not the entire country's. Obviously you're not even reading the conservative kool-aid you post...

I'm sure you didn't even read Goji's post, you just ignored it and dismissed it as "communist". Typical conservative evasion. I stand by what I said about you. These kinds of posts only make it more obvious. For example, telling someone with a different viewpoint to leave the country? Obviously you don't understand what the US of A is made of... you're not a patriot, you're a hatriot.

Joe · June 3, 2013

Fascinating, he's the one arguing to preserve the American freedoms that we've enjoyed for hundreds of years, but he's the "hatriot" (we'll assume that's a word just for the sake of discussion.)

What do you call the people who are dismantling this country? Are they the true patriots to you?

GojiMet86 · June 3, 2013

Fascinating, he's the one arguing to preserve the American freedoms that we've enjoyed for hundreds of years, but he's the "hatriot" (we'll assume that's a word just for the sake of discussion.)

What do you call the people who are dismantling this country? Are they the true patriots to you?

Preserving American Freedoms? Please, this "enjoyment" you talk about is false. Freedom for everyone exists only because of liberals, and that's only been within the last 100 to 50 years. They're the ones actively getting rights and freedoms for everyone. Constitutionalists and conservatives have actively, through the history of the US, tried to prevent people, whether it be slaves, blacks, women and gays, from getting rights by pointing out that the laws and the Constitution prevent minorities from having rights. The slave-holder of the 1800s could point to the Constitution and say slaves don't deserve citizenship because it doesn't say it in the Constitution. The Dixie Democrat and the Buckleys of the '60s could point to the Jim Crow laws and say blacks broke the law and don't deserve shit.

And then when minorities try to get rights through Amendments, the Constitutionalist and conservative point to the law and say, "Why reward the lawbreaker? Why should we reward the black man, who is breaking the law by voting, for this crime? Why reward suffragists, who broke the law when they demanded the right for women to vote, for this crime?". The Dixie Democrats did this during the '60s. The Know Nothings did it in the 1850s, today's Republicans are doing it. Oh, is it a coincidence that all these groups saw and see themselves as true Americans, and see America deteriorate because of foreigners and radicals? Is it a coincidence that they fought hard not to change the racist laws of Jim Crow and the laws of yesteryear?

You're continuing that Nativist tradition: "Why reward illegals, who broke the law by not having papers, for this crime?". Except that, lucky for you, today's laws don't prohibit ethnic and racial groups. You have the benefit of hindsight, to see what errors past Constitutionalists have made in order to present yourself as not racist or prejudice, so that if anyone bothers to grant citizenship for illegals, you can just say illegals don't deserve crap because the law says so.

I get you, you don't want to change the Constitution, because then it'd be subject to countless interpretations and revisions, and perhaps what made America what it is today may forever change. But see, if no changes had never been made to it, then there would still be slavery, women wouldn't be allowed to vote, and so on. And Joe, the Constitution isn't this little perfect thing that people should dogmatically follow, like you do.

Oh, and freedom based on guns is a false freedom. All it is is freedom based on paranoia and fear, fear that the people in the ghetto and the illegal worker will rise up against the establishment, which, based on your posts, you believe you belong to. Otherwise, why fear them?

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/35770-in-california-immigration-bill-designed-as-the-anti-arizona/?hl=rise

Will you be purchasing your first firearm once open season is declared upon whites? Gonna join in on the festivities?

Why the fear of the minority? What is in their cultures that you deem inferior to white culture?

Joe · June 4, 2013

The real question you should be asking is: why does he harbor so much hate for those he deems different? However, that question would undermine your warped view of the world, therefore, it shall not be pondered by you. Hear no evil, see no evil. Keep reminding yourself, lest you forget.

What I could never understand is the constant liberal disparagement of the Constitution as fundamentally flawed. The document exists as is, and it is the basis for the government of this nation. If the government outlined by it is so bad, then why are you even here? If you don't like it, leave. Quit mooching off of the government that is so flawed (in your opinion) and relocate yourself to a government that is perfect.

Also, this shouldn't come as a shock, but none of your examples are relevant to your point. Every case you bring up is one where rights were afforded. The progressive agenda you push forward with no rhyme nor reason is one where rights are removed. Responsibilities are removed from the people and afforded to the government. Free people don't exist where you have big government.

GojiMet86 · June 4, 2013

The real question you should be asking is: why does he harbor so much hate for those he deems different? However, that question would undermine your warped view of the world, therefore, it shall not be pondered by you. Hear no evil, see no evil. Keep reminding yourself, lest you forget.

What I could never understand is the constant liberal disparagement of the Constitution as fundamentally flawed. The document exists as is, and it is the basis for the government of this nation. If the government outlined by it is so bad, then why are you even here? If you don't like it, leave. Quit mooching off of the government that is so flawed (in your opinion) and relocate yourself to a government that is perfect.

Also, this shouldn't come as a shock, but none of your examples are relevant to your point. Every case you bring up is one where rights were afforded. The progressive agenda you push forward with no rhyme nor reason is one where rights are removed. Responsibilities are removed from the people and afforded to the government. Free people don't exist where you have big government.

Why does 909 hate does that are different? Why does 909 show prejudice against minorities and blacks? I don't know, but he has shown he hates 'em, or at the least prejudice against them. And please do tell me how that undermines my "warped" view of the world. Are you saying that my world view, where people regardless of race, ethnicity, religion and gender should be treated equally, is hideously twisted? What's your world view? Is it the world where only the white man, with his guns, defends himself against the black savage? Is it the world where he uses every chance to keep him in the ghetto? Clearly, you do not want my world, and clearly, you have shown a preference where people should stay in their place and shut up about it. That's why you hate it when people demand civil rights. To you, they are whining and want the nanny government to take care of them by giving them rights. All this protesting is a bunch of whining to you. They're just a bunch of idiot, irresponsible, commie liberals.

Frankly, you don't make a lot sense. But then again, irrational, racists bigots don't make sense either.

Also, Joe, at least make historically correct claims. Progressives and liberals are the mainstays in adding rights, not removing them. And in this day and age, where paranoid right wingers demand guns to defend themselves against this imaginary, upcoming battle with liberalism, the right to arms becomes a right not worthy of the Constitution. Also, you're quite wrong about rights being afforded in my examples. Blacks didn't have the right to vote during slavery, women didn't have the right to vote. No such rights existed back then. It's only been because of progressive efforts that there are so many more rights today. Does the progressive Martin Luther King ring a bell? How about Susan B. Anthony? Rosa Parks? Stanton? Du Bois, creator of the NAACP that you see as "racist", or reverse racist, or whatever the hell racists call it when they see minorities catching up to them in society?

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/primarydocuments/Vol3/30-Oct-1956_ToKennedy.pdf

Thanks for your very kind letter of October 18, making inquiry concerning my political position. Actually, I am not taking any public position in this election. In private opinion I find something to be desired from both parties. The Negro has been betrayed by both the Democratic and Republican Party. The Democrats have betrayed us by capitulating to the whims and caprices of the southern dixiecrats. The Republicans have betrayed us by capitulating to the blatent hypocrisy of conservative right wing northerners. This coalition of southern dixiecrats and right wing northern Republicans defeats every move toward liberal legislation in Congress. So we confront the problem of choosing the lesser of two evils. At this point I might say however, that I feel that the Negro must remain an independent voter, not becoming unduly tied to either party. He should seek to vote for the party which is more concerned with the welfare of all the people.

Oh my, look at that, MLK explicitly condemning conservatism and right wingers for trying to prevent the liberal programs that were concerned with the people. But wait, you hate welfare and anybody "mooching" off the government.

Please, crawl back to whatever hellhole you came from. Bigotry doesn't deserve a place in America, especially when it uses the Constitution as a shield to prevent people from living a life free of fear, free of guns, free of the worry that the guy with the gun might shoot them.

SoSpectacular · June 4, 2013

Not everybody chooses to live off public assistance. People are practically forced to. You see those people that are stuck working the jobs you wouldn't even think about doing? Yeah, they actually get told to sign up for that crap.

You're actually better off living off public assistance. Fortunately some of us still have our pride and choose not to go that route.

Plus, a child should NOT be a member of any organization where their members are crazed lunatics obsessed with anything related to guns.

Phantom909 · June 5, 2013

threxx

since i promised not to rip you because youre a kid so ill just say this. i did read his post. the william l. pierce piece he posted talked about the March 18, 1938 german law, which did not take weaopns from the jewish population. the law i posted was on november 11, 1938 which specifically says that jews must surrender all weapons immediately. mr pierce, whether he didnt cite the second law, is either a sloppy job of research, or a deliberate attempt to spin it in his view. either way his ommission does not tell the full story, you can look it up yourself. and for your other point, if he hates this country, nobody is stopping him from leaving, he should go someplace where he would be comfortable living his life as a serf or slave, whichever he prefers

so spectacular

and why are people forced to go on public assistance? its because of obama`s policies, companies cant afford to hire people. obama can talk all he wants that the unemployment rate is 7.5% down from 7.8% from when he took office in january 2009, even thought he said that if we passed his 793 billion dollar stimulus unemployment would be down to 5.5% now, but since people who have dropped out of the workforce aren`t counted its a flawed number. a better indicator is the labor participation rate, when obama took office it was 65.7% it is now 63.3%, the lowest its been since october 1978 under carter.Now you claim law abiding americans nra members are crazed lunatics, where is your proof of that. the savage who killed those kids in newtown was not an nra member, the savage who killed the people in aurora was not an nra member, neither were the columbine savages, the virginia tech savage, the fort hood savage, the savage who killed the girl on the q-6, so where do you get off saying that?

86

reading your racist, hateful socialist diatribe just proves one thing, you are the racist, not i, you keep regurgitating the same academia regressive line, how regressives are the ones who care, yet they are the ones destroying this country`s economy, this country`s soverignty, this country`s laws. they are the ones who preach hate, jealousy and derisiveness, they are the ones who keep minorities down, they are the ones who keep the ghettos intact. they are the ones who try to silence opposition, they are the ones who attack law abiding citizens, they are the ones who dont feel that the laws of this country pertain to them they do not preach personal responsibility, they dont preach self reliance, they preach that they know whats best for you so give them all the power and we can be good little happy drones living off the crumbs of what they give us. sorry i will not ever fall into being a drone or a serf or a subject or a slave to an orwellian big brother government. if this country ever goes that way, ill be one of the first thrown into a gulag, cause im proud of my hard work, my abiding by the laws of this country, my self reliance and personal responsibility, paying for everything i own, never being jealous of anyone who has more than me, thats what being a true american is all about, not a panty wearing, hateful, crybaby racist drone like you.

joe

SoSpectacular · June 5, 2013

so spectacular

and why are people forced to go on public assistance? its because of obama`s policies, companies cant afford to hire people. obama can talk all he wants that the unemployment rate is 7.5% down from 7.8% from when he took office in january 2009, even thought he said that if we passed his 793 billion dollar stimulus unemployment would be down to 5.5% now, but since people who have dropped out of the workforce aren`t counted its a flawed number. a better indicator is the labor participation rate, when obama took office it was 65.7% it is now 63.3%, the lowest its been since october 1978 under carter.Now you claim law abiding americans nra members are crazed lunatics, where is your proof of that. the savage who killed those kids in newtown was not an nra member, the savage who killed the people in aurora was not an nra member, neither were the columbine savages, the virginia tech savage, the fort hood savage, the savage who killed the girl on the q-6, so where do you get off saying that?

Whoa buddy, slow down. Obama didn't just pull that trick out of his hat, it was already on the table when Bush was still in office- remember the big crash happened when Bush was in office to begin with. When Obama took office he had that mess to contend with.

I call them lunatics because of the stupidities I read or hear about them, like that senseless iPhone game they came out with. Oh, and inviting a child into their little organization just because he made a damn gun out of a Pop Tart. We had kids doodling guns on paper with pencil in school.

You know the stimulus went to the companies that were failing, to "bail" them out from their stupid mistakes. We, the citizens, needed that money more than they did. The banks didn't deserve any of that- they're the ones that screwed a whole lot of people with home loans they knew they weren't going to get back! As far as jobs go? Nothing's going to really change. As long as these big companies continue to maintain a large number of highly paid executives with their lucrative packages and golden parachutes you're always going to be screwed over.

MHV9218 · June 5, 2013

Phantom, your nonsense is enough to take to start with, how about you act your age and not your shoe size for a minute and quit downvoting posts? I don't downvote yours, no matter how ludicrous they are..

Phantom909 · June 6, 2013

Whoa buddy, slow down. Obama didn't just pull that trick out of his hat, it was already on the table when Bush was still in office- remember the big crash happened when Bush was in office to begin with. When Obama took office he had that mess to contend with.

I call them lunatics because of the stupidities I read or hear about them, like that senseless iPhone game they came out with. Oh, and inviting a child into their little organization just because he made a damn gun out of a Pop Tart. We had kids doodling guns on paper with pencil in school.

You know the stimulus went to the companies that were failing, to "bail" them out from their stupid mistakes. We, the citizens, needed that money more than they did. The banks didn't deserve any of that- they're the ones that screwed a whole lot of people with home loans they knew they weren't going to get back! As far as jobs go? Nothing's going to really change. As long as these big companies continue to maintain a large number of highly paid executives with their lucrative packages and golden parachutes you're always going to be screwed over.

.

uh no, TARP (Toxic assets Recovery Program) came out of the bush administration, thats the money that was given to the banks and AIG who btw have paid it all back. Obama`s $793 billion stimulus was passed on february 19, 2009, thats the money that he said was gonna be used for infrastructure to put people back to work, but in reality over 30 pct went to unions to pay them back for supporting him, thats called bribary and again, the increase of taxes, regulation, and obamacare is keeping companies from hiring people. btw obama said that obamacare would cost $940 billion over 10 years, thats why the senate passed it using reconcilliation cause at that cost it would be revenue neutral. but today the cost is now #2.8 trillion over 10 years, which anyone with a brain knew that it would cost more than what he, pelosi, and reid said, that is what we call in the real world fraud.

Phantom, your nonsense is enough to take to start with, how about you act your age and not your shoe size for a minute and quit downvoting posts? I don't downvote yours, no matter how ludicrous they are..

..

typical answer from a marxist, you cant debate with facts so you put down the opposition, very alinsky-ite. i dont give 2 shits what you think, you are a mindless jealous drone who wants to steal money from people who earned it legally, i remember you saying that federal income tax should be 55-60 pct. one little thing that you should know, socialism, communism, statism is great till they run out of other people`s money.

and btw what are you drones think about the nsa getting a secret court order that forces verizon to turn over, on a daily basis, all records of all calls including calls within the united states. this started april 25th and will run till july 19th. just another day in the most corrupt, liberty, freedom hating, lying administration in american history

joe

CenSin · June 6, 2013

You can add the dangerous poptart to the list of things they'll showcase.

Point out the idiocy of liberal policies and they just claim you're desperate. You can't make this shit up.

In a span of 3 posts, I found a post I liked and disliked from the same person. That's a first.

And idiocy comes from both sides, by the way.

SoSpectacular · June 6, 2013

Yeah, it's whatever. Believe what you want to believe. Keep sipping the Kool-Aid!

GojiMet86 · June 7, 2013

threxx

since i promised not to rip you because youre a kid so ill just say this. i did read his post. the william l. pierce piece he posted talked about the March 18, 1938 german law, which did not take weaopns from the jewish population. the law i posted was on november 11, 1938 which specifically says that jews must surrender all weapons immediately. mr pierce, whether he didnt cite the second law, is either a sloppy job of research, or a deliberate attempt to spin it in his view. either way his ommission does not tell the full story, you can look it up yourself. and for your other point, if he hates this country, nobody is stopping him from leaving, he should go someplace where he would be comfortable living his life as a serf or slave, whichever he prefers

.....

86

reading your racist, hateful socialist diatribe just proves one thing, you are the racist, not i, you keep regurgitating the same academia regressive line, how regressives are the ones who care, yet they are the ones destroying this country`s economy, this country`s soverignty, this country`s laws. they are the ones who preach hate, jealousy and derisiveness, they are the ones who keep minorities down, they are the ones who keep the ghettos intact. they are the ones who try to silence opposition, they are the ones who attack law abiding citizens, they are the ones who dont feel that the laws of this country pertain to them they do not preach personal responsibility, they dont preach self reliance, they preach that they know whats best for you so give them all the power and we can be good little happy drones living off the crumbs of what they give us. sorry i will not ever fall into being a drone or a serf or a subject or a slave to an orwellian big brother government. if this country ever goes that way, ill be one of the first thrown into a gulag, cause im proud of my hard work, my abiding by the laws of this country, my self reliance and personal responsibility, paying for everything i own, never being jealous of anyone who has more than me, thats what being a true american is all about, not a panty wearing, hateful, crybaby racist drone like you.

joe

909, you clearly don't any research. You literally judge a book by its cover, like a dogmatic drone, when you assumed that because Pierce argued the Nazis didn't do gun control, that he was a liberal and an academic. So much stereotyping on your part. Quite the opposite with William L. Pierce, a white Nationalist. Pierce was a conservative, as conservative as any conservative can get. He hated liberals, blacks, gays, illegal immigrants and immigrants, communists, socialists, Hispanics, anything not white or capitalist. Shit, if he had the chance, he would take my life and the lives of liberals. Why? To him, the Jews and liberals of Germany were the ones who wanted gun control.

Now let's see, this Pierce guy was against gun control because liberals are the ones pushing such laws, and had a fear of liberals ruining America. His arguments sounds a lot like yours and all the cons here, doesn't it? It's because it's the same basic argument Pierce, you, conservatives, and Republicans push: Liberals are the gun control freaks and a bunch of commies, and they deserve no place in America.

Ironically, it's the old adage conservatives use, "It's not the guns that kill, it's the people that kill" that rings true here. The Jews sure as hell weren't violent, but the Nazis were. Liberals sure as hell aren't the violent people, it's the conservatives that are. After all, who else wants to see thugs and lowlifes fry and get death sentences? Who wants to get rid of the scum that's liberalism? It does makes a difference whose doing the gun control. If liberals do it, prepare for a better, peaceful future. If it's conservatives, then prepare for that imaginary war against Obama and liberals that right-wingers are always hoping for.One of the reasons cons hate it when people suggest taking away guns: No weapon to use against the liberal. Hey look, if you don't want peace to work, then it won't work. If you don't want to stop people from getting any legal or illegal access to guns, then you'll guarantee yourself more deaths and wars.

Now, if you don't agree, let me show a better source:

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf

Even more interesting, though, within the pro-gun community there is sharp conflict whether Hitler was pro-gun control. As noted earlier, one of the moving force behind the Nazi-gun-registration argument is the JPFO, which has published two books documenting Hitler’s use of gun registration, translated the German laws, and drawn fierce attention to the issue of totalitarian gun control measures.71 This organization is clearly anti-Nazi and pro-gun. But one of the leading defenders of Hitler on the question of gun control is also pro-gun. It’s the National Alliance & National Vanguard, a white supremacist organization. According to a pamphlet published by National Vanguard Books, Gun Control in Germany, 1928–1945 by William L. Pierce, Adolf Hitler was actually very much in favor of liberal gun possession. Pierce writes...

..Now, make no mistake. This argument is from a pamphlet published and promoted by National Vanguard Books and the National Alliance. In order to be a member of National Alliance, you have to be a “White person (a non-Jewish person of wholly European ancestry) of good character. . . . No homosexual or bisexual person, . . .no person with a non-White spouse or a non-White dependent” need apply. 73 This is a white supremacist organization. Yet it is also, perhaps, one of the most vocal opponents of the Nazi-registration argument. And it is vehemently pro-gun. Oddly, the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) and the National Alliance are bedfellows when it comes to gun regulation—though not, obviously, when it comes to Adolf Hitler.

The challenge, then, is to explore this cleavage in the pro-gun community. The most vocal participants in the debate over the Nazi gun laws are, on one side, the JPFO84 and Stephen Halbrook, whose writings, most recently Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews,85 most clearly set forth the Nazi-gun-registration argument;86 and, on the other side, William Pierce, whose four-page essay Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945, published with the translated texts of the German laws, most clearly sets forth the opposing position that the Nazis were not pro-gun control. Neither Halbrook nor Pierce are historians,"8 however, and their ideological commitments are so flagrant - Halbrook as a pro-gun litigator and Pierce as a pro-gun white supremacist -that neither can be trusted entirely in these historical and statutory debates.

...Finally, with regard to disarming the Jew population, there is no dispute that the Nazis did disarm Jewish persons aggressively—of all firearms, as well as “truncheons or stabbing weapons.”114 The Minister of the Interior, Frick, enacted Regulations Against Jew’s Possession of Weapons on November 11, 1938, which effectively deprived all Jewish persons of the right to possess firearms or other weapons. It was a regulation prohibiting Jewish persons from having any dangerous weapon—not just guns. Under the regulations, Jewish persons “are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.”115 Moreover, prior to that, the German police and Nazis used the 1938 firearms law as an excuse to disarm Jewish persons. In Breslau, for instance, as Halbrook reports, the city police chief decreed the seizure of all firearms from Jewish persons on the ground that “the Jewish population ‘cannot be regarded as trustworthy’”—using the language from the 1928 and 1938 firearms laws.116

It is fair to conclude, then, that the 1938 Nazi gun laws represented a slight relaxation of gun control, at least with regard to general gun acquisition, transfer, and carrying. To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide. But it appears that the Nazis aspired to a certain relaxation of gun laws for the “ordinary” or “law-abiding” German citizen, for those who were not, in their minds, “enemies of the National Socialist state.”117

Again, Halbrook argues that these reports are propaganda, but it is simply not clear that they are. These and other passages are transparent: Frick and Hitler intended to liberalize gun control laws in Germany for “trustworthy” German citizens, while disarming “unreliable” persons, especially the Jewish population. In order to disarm Jewish persons, the Nazi government used both the “trustworthiness” requirements originally legislated in 1928, as well as more direct regulations denying Jews the right to manufacture or possess firearms. It is absurd to even try to characterize this as either proor anti-gun control. But if forced to, I would have to conclude, at least preliminarily from this straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation, that the Nazis favored less gun control for the “trustworthy” German citizen than the predecessor Weimar Republic, while disarming and engaging in a genocide of the Jewish population.

How is it, you may ask, that I—the faithful and loving son of a Jewish refugee who escaped his native France in June 1940 thanks to the magnanimity of a Portugese consul who illegally signed thousands of visas for Jews and other refugees 121—would end up agreeing with a white supremacist leader of the National Alliance and National Vanguard? This is the truly bizarre, surprising, and somewhat uncomfortable product of culture war. It is the often unexpected, but utterly fascinating result of the fragmentation and fracturing of apparently monolithic identity groups and world views—or what might be called “cultural orientations.” It reflects both the strange alliances and the unanticipated conflicts between and within identities. Here, in effect, is the ultimate irony: The pro-gunners are probably right, the Nazi-gun-registration argument is probably wrong. Or, as a recent letter to the editor in the Arizona Republic reads, though I suspect not fully appreciating the irony of the statement: “I agree. . . that gun control is a bad idea, but in this Hitler was on our side, not on the side of the gun-grabbers.” 122

Pierce was racist. Now try calling Halcourt a Nazi.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You also clearly don't understand or comprehend what racism is, 909. It's calling two black criminals "crap, lowlife scumbag" or called on to "fry the scumbag lowlife piece of shit savage", but not the three white guys, who combined and individually caused so much more damage, hurt so many people, killed many more people, and caused America to even think on putting stricter gun control. You didn't even bother commenting on them. By the way, did I mention both Fuller and Tsarnaev killed cops? Because they both did. But when the black guy kills someone, he's automatically a scumbag and a savage. Tsarnaev? No comment. Oh, nice try calling the other guys you mentioned savages, but it's too late for that, it ain't gonna help you.

Here, I'll use another example to illustrate your incomprehension of racism:

It's a Jew (me) arguing that the Nazi (you) is a racist because the Nazi hates Jews, gypsies, and blacks, and is using laws to prevent them from doing anything legal so that the Nazi can call them law breaking citizens. But the Nazi (you) is arguing the Jew is racist because Jews hate Nazis, so therefore the Jew must be racist.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You've also have never shown how liberals are destroying America, or how liberals are racist. You always assume liberals are always on some welfare. You just keep saying these things, like an actual dogmatic drone.

And please stop talking about us as if we slack off. My parents have already worked hard all their life, and now I'm studying hard in college to get a good job in the future because of their efforts. They want me to get a good education. They want me to get a good job. So f**k off and keep your mouth shut, and stop assuming we suck government tit.

Sign In

8-Year-Old Suspended Over Gun-Shaped Pop-Tart Gets Lifetime NRA Membership

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived

Important Information