Racist Terrorist kills 9 black worshippers :(

[columbus]

Belief in God(s) can encourage mental illness.

Exactly.
Teaching people to believe in things that there is no real evidence for is religious. It is also mental illness.
Tom

 

[Aquitaine]

I'm sorry, but you got any proof of that? Acknowledging gun technology would inevitably advance does not equal foreseeing machine-guns and rifles that can kill a man from a mile away.


When the Nazis came into power they lowered the age which one could purchase a gun from 20 to 18 and removed ALL restrictions to the purchase & carry of long-guns and, as well as the ability to purchase any ammunition. Only Jews, criminals & other "Undesirable" groups in society couldn't own a gun. But the average German? Could buy any gun they wanted. The only in place(which had been in place long, long long before the Nazis started running things and thus were simply laws that were there) were in regards to handguns, and even then getting a permit to own a pistol, if you were a German national, was trivial. In fact, if you were a member of the NSDAP(which had a membership of around eight million) you didn't need any sort of permit whatsoever.

As for Fascist Itly, Stalin's Soviet Union, Castro's Cuba...they didn't ban guns either. In the case of the Soviet Union & Russia, gunlaws had been in a state of flux for centuries, and Stalin was merely continuing the laws that had been in place since before he was born. Pol Pot didn't ban guns either, he banned Vietmanese weapons' traders, this despite the fact his own army was short on guns. Castro's Cuba? Only rifles were regulated. Handguns? Nope. Castro supported the right to bear arms. How do you think he won his revolution?

Got any more historical fallacies I can wreck for you?


Ahhhh, and here's the crux of the argument. "It's the ferriners' who're the problem, not us red-blooded white muricans!".

That was a very well-constructed and astute response, I like it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, atheists keep telling me that there is no prescription stapled to their lack of belief, or outright disbelief ion God(s).
But........ hey, I'll accept that sentence.

We heathens don't share any belief system, so we have no scripture.
But many major faiths (Judaism, Xianity, Islam) have prescriptions for violence.
So when my more violent brethren act out, they're doing so with greater independence.

I picked up that Rook is an avowed atheist from a Brit newspaper in the local cafe, which was why I could not staple anything to my post.
But I don't think that anybody who murders folks in a church is a believer in the same God, anyway. Unless he wanted to get dished with a slice of hellfire, etc.

I've still found nothing about his religious beliefs on the internet.
And I'm magnanimous enuf to not tag him as a Xian because of his KKK link.

 

[Revoltingest]

When the Nazis came into power they lowered the age which one could purchase a gun from 20 to 18 and removed ALL restrictions to the purchase & carry of long-guns and, as well as the ability to purchase any ammunition. Only Jews, criminals & other "Undesirable" groups in society couldn't own a gun.

I can't speak to the accuracy of this, but it would seem to point towards the advantages of the right to bear arms,
ie, when the oppressors are armed, & the oppressed are disarmed, it will be shoot'n fish in a barrel.

 

[psychoslice]

So, you would agree that we shouldn't distort this incident to say something about atheism or atheists in general, correct?

I'm just saying the man who shot those people don't represent white people just because he is white, if he had black hair, that also doesn't represent black haired people, I think those of any race or colour who have anger towards any other race or colour will use that for an excuse to be violent towards the race or colour they don't dislike.

 

[Nietzsche]

I can't speak to the accuracy of this, but it would seem to point towards the advantages of the right to bear arms,
ie, when the oppressors are armed, & the oppressed are disarmed, it will be shoot'n fish in a barrel.

You mean like in Warsaw, Leningrad, Serbia, Zamość, Greece and other places I'm undoubtedly forgetting?

You see where I'm going with that? None of those events slowed the German advance for a single day. As awesome as Braveheart is, that's not how insurgency & resistance work.Those with successful uprisings are miniscule at best.

That was a very well-constructed and astute response, I like it.

Shameless plug; I have a thread devoted to questions people might have regarding National Socialism, the German social & economic situation between 1700 and 1945, as well as figures both recognizable and obscure who were members of the NASDAP. And I do not just mean the war, I mean the entire Nazi program as a whole, and its variants, along with indepth study on Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, Himmler Martin Bormann, Reinhard Heydich and in a few cases the lowr-level functionaries and such.

 

[Revoltingest]

You mean like in Warsaw, Leningrad, Serbia, Zamość, Greece and other places I'm undoubtedly forgetting?

I was thinking of Germany.
Hitler wasn't really in charge of those other places.

You see where I'm going with that? None of those events slowed the German advance for a single day. As awesome as Braveheart is, that's not how insurgency & resistance work.Those with successful uprisings are miniscule at best.

So you would suggest that resistance in occupied countries is futile?
I disagree.
And while the efficacy is in dispute, I'd rather die fighting than peacefully marching off to the gas chamber.
Tis a personal choice.

 

[gsa]

sigh. Someone needs to shatter a glass dildo in his ***. More "Lost Cause" and "The South was fighting for their rights" bull****.

Though in fairness he wasn't entirely wrong. The South *was* fighting for state's rights. Their right to enslave Negroes.

This meme dies very hard.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was thinking of Germany.
Hitler wasn't really in charge of those other places.

So you would suggest that resistance in occupied countries is futile?
I disagree.
And while the efficacy is in dispute, I'd rather die fighting than peacefully marching off to the gas chamber.
Tis a personal choice.

I'd rather provide an effective resistance than one which involves a mad charge into a hail of bullets too, but to each their own.
I commonly find your approach to responding pretty thought-provoking, since you cut through a lot of the crap, and state your case simply. In this case, though, you're drawing a false parallel, in my opinion. Hesitate to speak for Nietzsche, but I don't see him as a pacifist, by any means.

Do you think gun control precludes resistance? Do you think gun control equates to pacifism in the face of oppression? And finally, where do you draw the line on weapon control? To what level should we allow more effective weapons to be in the hands of civilians in order to provide sufficient deterrent in case of oppression?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd rather provide an effective resistance than one which involves a mad charge into a hail of bullets....

Yeah, I'm not the hard charging type.

I commonly find your approach to responding pretty thought-provoking, since you cut through a lot of the crap, and state your case simply. In this case, though, you're drawing a false parallel, in my opinion. Hesitate to speak for Nietzsche, but I don't see him as a pacifist, by any means.

Armed civilians have made the difference, no matter what he claims.
I'm not a pacifist.
I'm a non-aggressionist, & I favor a strong defense against aggressors from within & without.
I respect the right of others to be disarmed in the face of a threat, but I choose otherwise.

Do you think gun control precludes resistance?

No.
But resistance can take many forms.
Being armed provides another one.

Do you think gun control equates to pacifism in the face of oppression?

Not necessarily.

And finally, where do you draw the line on weapon control?

In Americastan, I take a constitutional originalilst view that what civilians had was what the framers envisioned,
ie, state of the art militarily capable small arms (not warships, petards, or cannons).

To what level should we allow more effective weapons to be in the hands of civilians in order to provide sufficient deterrent in case of oppression?

If you propose amending the Constitution amended to allow more than what I outlined above, then I'd have to ponder that at great length before answering.

 

[Nietzsche]

I was thinking of Germany.
Hitler wasn't really in charge of those other places.

What would've changed, at all, if Jews had had (more*)weapons during the Kristallnacht?

*In a move of striking basic human decency, Jews who had been awarded the Iron Cross during WW1 were explicitly to be left alone, and in one documented case when Goering discovered someone had been put on a train to be relocated to a camp by going over the names of the 'list' of the people being moved, he found a WW1 veteran who had been decorated with the Iron Cross First Class in 1916, when he IIRC literally jumped on a grenade that the Brits had lobbed into their trench, somehow he survived he immediately demanded the train be stopped, the man be escorted to his home, and his posessions either returned or fairly compensated for.

They didn't fight with guns because they didn't have them, they didn't fight with them because they KNEW that any engagement with a Wehrmacht battalion would utterly destroy them. The guns would've done nothing.

So you would suggest that resistance in occupied countries is futile?
I disagree.

Resistance movements made up almost entirely of poorly-trained & undisciplined civilians are futile, yes.

And while the efficacy is in dispute, I'd rather die fighting than peacefully marching off to the gas chamber.
Tis a personal choice.

But that scenario isn't viable in an sense of the word. This is the United States, not Nazi Germany, Ustase Croatia or Iron-Guard Romania.

Frankly our gunlaws are far too lax. But I also want to say that I do not at all want to ban guns. I own a Luger P08, model 1912. And it gets better. It's a custom, nickel-plated beauty, something I cherish above all else.

 

[Revoltingest]

What would've changed, at all, if Jews had had (more*)weapons during the Kristallnacht?

"During"?
That wouldn't have been the most opportune moment.
I'd say that being sent to the camps was a decisive point where armed resistance was clearly a worthy path.

*In a move of striking basic human decency, Jews who had been awarded the Iron Cross during WW1 were explicitly to be left alone, and in one documented case when Goering discovered someone had been put on a train to be relocated to a camp by going over the names of the 'list' of the people being moved, he found a WW1 veteran who had been decorated with the Iron Cross First Class in 1916, when he IIRC literally jumped on a grenade that the Brits had lobbed into their trench, somehow he survived he immediately demanded the train be stopped, the man be escorted to his home, and his posessions either returned or fairly compensated for.

I don't see how this has bearing on the subject at hand.

They didn't fight with guns because they didn't have them, they didn't fight with them because they KNEW that any engagement with a Wehrmacht battalion would utterly destroy them. The guns would've done nothing.

It reminds me of a Henry Ford quote....something like....
"Whether you think you can or think you can't...you're right."
The ones who died in concentration camps would've at least taken some Nazis with them had they violently resisted.

Resistance movements made up almost entirely of poorly-trained & undisciplined civilians are futile, yes.

And yet, it made a difference in our revolution.

But that scenario isn't viable in an sense of the word. This is the United States, not Nazi Germany, Ustase Croatia or Iron-Guard Romania.

I just envision more possible scenarios than do you.
In some, guns in private hands are useful.

Frankly our gunlaws are far too lax. But I also want to say that I do not at all want to ban guns. I own a Luger P08, model 1912. And it gets better. It's a custom, nickel-plated beauty, something I cherish above all else.

Hah!
A fellow gun nut!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah, I'm not the hard charging type.

Weirdly, I reckon I might have been in my youth. But I'm not longer young. Phew!

Armed civilians have made the difference, no matter what he claims.

Dunno. Between Nietzsche and myself, we have read a stupid amount of military history. I have no idea on your background in that sense, and am not saying you don't have a valid opinion. However the majority of effective ARMED resistance I can think of has been spearheaded by men with training. Be they old vets, militia soldiers, or remnants of broken army units. The Partisan movements across the Eastern front would be a simple example. Or for a different flavour, consider Vietnam.

I'm not really going too far back in this. Modern weaponry does kinda change the equation to a degree. Last hundred years, I guess?

I'm not a pacifist.
I'm a non-aggressionist, & I favor a strong defense against aggressors from within & without.
I respect the right of others to be disarmed in the face of a threat, but I choose otherwise.

Personally, for me it's not really a question about arms. It's a question about control. Somehow the second amendment seems to be read as 'unfettered right to bear arms' which I don't get at all, particularly when considering it in it's historical context.

No.
But resistance can take many forms.
Being armed provides another one.

Explosives would be a more effective way for a small group to effectively resist government or external oppression and occupation than many small arms. One of the issues I have with this debate is that effective means of defence against an oppressive government is exactly the same equipment as you require to effectively destabilize a democratically elected government. Talk of being able to 'defend democracy' or similar often doesn't seem to account for that simple fact.

In Americastan, I take a constitutional originalilst view that what civilians had was what the framers envisioned,
ie, state of the art militarily capable small arms (not warships, petards, or cannons).

Interesting. To be honest, I'd need to refresh my memory on some of the details. It's been a while since I've read much about the origins of the right to bear arms, and the devil is in the detail I think. Anyway, I get your point, and it makes sense (regardless of my agreement...lol)

If you propose amending the Constitution amended to allow more than what I outlined above, then I'd have to ponder that at great length before answering.

It gets back to the detail, I guess. I am trying to recall two things, and off the top of my head I can't.
1) What was the intent in terms of the holders of arms. I thought it related more to the rights of private militias, since that was a means to raise an effective force, rather than simply farmers with guns. But of course, one doesn't preclude the other.
2) What was the intent in terms of strength of arms. Private militias were armed with heavier weapons that muskets, even if supply issues meant this was not common. So I'm unconvinced for now that the second amendment related to the farmers with guns scenario, whilst acknowledging that this is what much of the milita in fact was.

Bah. One of these days I'll start a proper second amendment thread, and stop derailing, but I fear (ironically) any examination of the second amendment and it's origins would be derailed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Weirdly, I reckon I might have been in my youth. But I'm not longer young. Phew!



Dunno. Between Nietzsche and myself, we have read a stupid amount of military history. I have no idea on your background in that sense, and am not saying you don't have a valid opinion. However the majority of effective ARMED resistance I can think of has been spearheaded by men with training. Be they old vets, militia soldiers, or remnants of broken army units. The Partisan movements across the Eastern front would be a simple example. Or for a different flavour, consider Vietnam.

I'm not really going too far back in this. Modern weaponry does kinda change the equation to a degree. Last hundred years, I guess?

Personally, for me it's not really a question about arms. It's a question about control. Somehow the second amendment seems to be read as 'unfettered right to bear arms' which I don't get at all, particularly when considering it in it's historical context.

Explosives would be a more effective way for a small group to effectively resist government or external oppression and occupation than many small arms. One of the issues I have with this debate is that effective means of defence against an oppressive government is exactly the same equipment as you require to effectively destabilize a democratically elected government. Talk of being able to 'defend democracy' or similar often doesn't seem to account for that simple fact.

Interesting. To be honest, I'd need to refresh my memory on some of the details. It's been a while since I've read much about the origins of the right to bear arms, and the devil is in the detail I think. Anyway, I get your point, and it makes sense (regardless of my agreement...lol)

It gets back to the detail, I guess. I am trying to recall two things, and off the top of my head I can't.
1) What was the intent in terms of the holders of arms. I thought it related more to the rights of private militias, since that was a means to raise an effective force, rather than simply farmers with guns. But of course, one doesn't preclude the other.
2) What was the intent in terms of strength of arms. Private militias were armed with heavier weapons that muskets, even if supply issues meant this was not common. So I'm unconvinced for now that the second amendment related to the farmers with guns scenario, whilst acknowledging that this is what much of the milita in fact was.

Bah. One of these days I'll start a proper second amendment thread, and stop derailing, but I fear (ironically) any examination of the second amendment and it's origins would be derailed.

I'm running out of steam.
But we're not so far apart.
And yes, weaponry is changing in a fundamental way with respect to the 2nd Amendment.
We've interesting times ahead.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm running out of steam.
But we're not so far apart.
And yes, weaponry is changing in a fundamental way with respect to the 2nd Amendment.
We've interesting times ahead.

Fair enough. I've derailed enough anyway.
In terms of the OP, I'd have been more than happy if someone could have shot this racist before he managed to murder a bunch of innocents. Pretty sure we agree on that.


(You ever wanna do the second amendment dance, let me know)

 

[Revoltingest]

Fair enough. I've derailed enough anyway.
In terms of the OP, I'd have been more than happy if someone could have shot this racist before he managed to murder a bunch of innocents. Pretty sure we agree on that.

Aye!

(You ever wanna do the second amendment dance, let me know)

It's been so done here, but perhaps it will seem fresh & enticing again some day.
But I'm simple....post #90 pretty much spells out my position.

 

[Nietzsche]

"During"?
That wouldn't have been the most opportune moment.
I'd say that being sent to the camps was a decisive point where armed resistance was clearly a worthy path

Not 1 camp liberated by its inmates.in stead preferring to watfprf they had to be rescued by Soviets, Frenchmen,

II don't see how this has bearing on the subject at hand.

That was 110% my fault I gave an extremely hard time regarding my passion for history & the like.

t reminds me of a Henry Ford quote....something like....
"Whether you think you can or think you can't...you're right."
The ones who died in concentration camps would've at least taken some Nazis with them had they violently resisted

Probably. But how would you feel about it

Yes, They could have. But they'd also be writing their son & daughter's death notce. Not just for the parents, either.

I just envision more possible scenarios than do you.
In some, guns in private hands are useful.

Name one. Name a situation that was improved or remedied by having a "good guy with a gun. Not a Cop, not an ex-Soldier. Just Joe Schmoe.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not 1 camp liberated by its inmates.in stead preferring to watfprf they had to be rescued by Soviets, Frenchmen,


That was 110% my fault I gave an extremely hard time regarding my passion for history & the like.

Armed resistance is fraught with risk & tragedy.
Tis easy for me to be glib about it when I don't have to face it, but its judicious employment still looks to be a valid choice.

 

[Nietzsche]

This meme dies very hard.

You do know I was mocking the CSA right? Yes, it was fighting for state's rights...the right to brown people as farm equipment.,

 

[JacobEzra.]

And labeling every other attack as "terrorist" leads to a lack of distinction between what is actually a terrorist attack and what is not.

Correct.

I wouldn't call street crime terrorism. But I'll call this terrorism.

Its an attack made from a political ideology.