RKBA facts thread, feel free to add to it!

S

scrubcedar

New member
There is a misquote from Hitler running around on the internet.
"In order to conquer a country, you must first disarm its citizens."
This does indeed appear to be a misquote, the reality is much, much, worse.
Here is a scholarly reference, with footnotes, research etc.
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf
Notice the authors qualifications. "The author
holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University and a J.D. from Georgetown University.
Located in Fairfax, Virginia, he litigates constitutional law issues in the federal courts,
including the Supreme Court."
The real quote is somewhat different.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow
the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all
conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms
have prepared their own downfall by so doing.
Adolph Hitler"
This is the reference it came from.2. HITLER'S SECRET CONVERSATIONS 403 (Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens
trans., 1961).
While it was true that Hitler made it easier for Nazi Party members to have guns, disarming his political opponents was a high priority.
Imagine trying to round up the Jews while they were heavily armed.
Disarming political opponents while increasing your access to arms or arming the guards who protect you, sound familiar Mr. President, Ms Feinstein?

Here is a particularly on target and disturbing quote from the article.
To set the scene, this is after the Nazi's had started violently suppressing the opposition which they conveniently described as communists.

"The Gesetz über die Entwaffnung der Bevölkerung (Law on the
Disarmament of the People), passed on August 7, 1920, provided for a
Reichskommissar for Disarmament of the Civil Population.
He was empowered to
define which weapons were “military weapons” and thus subject to seizure.
The
bolt action Mauser rifles Models 1888/98, which had 5-shot magazines, were put in the
same class as hand grenades.
Persons with knowledge of unlawful arms caches
were required to inform the Disarmament Commission."

Or how about this quote,"By 1928, the Weimar republic was ready to enact a comprehensive firearms
law. The Gesetz über Schußwaffen und Munition (Law on Firearms and
Ammunition)
required a license to manufacture, assemble, or repair firearms and ammunition, or even to reload cartridges.
A license was also required to sell firearms
as a trade.
Trade in firearms was prohibited at annual fairs, shooting competitions,
and other events.
Acquisition of a firearm or ammunition required a Waffen oder
Munitionserwerbscheins (license to obtain a weapon or ammunition) from the police.
The requirement applied to both commercial sales and private transfers
"
If this information is not already starting to cause the hair on the back of your neck to stand up, feel free to read the whole article.
The reality is worse than the misquote.
I've written about the recent historical precedents at length on other threads as well.
If you have any facts you can back up with research that can be thrown into RKBA discussions share them here on this thread, we should all be better informed than our adversaries
__________________
 
By the way the whole point of this thread is so you can argue successfully that the 2nd amendment is what it says it is, and that it is still important.
I'd love to be able to see people rebutting an Anti's argument, then being able to tell anyone who becomes involved in the discussion that you will E-mail them proof of what you said.
It will not convince a Rabid Anti, but that's not the point. The point is to sway the average guy still trying to decide how they feel.
 
Skeeter posted this elsewhere. I think it's a fit.


The first step in total gun control is a national data base. That is exactly what happened when I lived in NYC. I bought an HK91 when they were "allowed" and a year later I get a letter from the Firearms Control Board saying the HK91 is now considered illegal and I need to turn it in.
A friend of mine thought he could just ignore the letter and several weeks later 6 police officer knocked on his door and took his "assault" weapon away, a weapon that was bought legally until the same Senators and Congressman who are protected by fully automatic weapons decided citizens should not have guns. The same Senators and Congressman who have a total Health Plan ( a Health Plan that is complete with even dental and is passed down to the Senators/Congressman's children at our expense)that is not allowed for the common Joe. My friend was told he would have been arrested if the letter was send certified and the police could prove he signed for it and received it.The few people who can have a license to carry in NYC, like Donald Trump, are obviously more important than the ordinary Joe.
Once they know WHO owns a gun they can come for them. Right now it is assault weapons and semi-auto pistols but like England,France, etc they will come for all guns. It is just a matter of time.

BTW, my opinion.
Obamie says he'll do anything to save one life.
Maybe he should go ahead and enact the National CCW Bill that's come across his desk twice so far. Get that out of committees and into law by Jan. 25th, 2013 and more people will be able to fight back and prevent even more crimes.
Remember, when nanoseconds can count, the PD is only minutes away.
 
Thanks for the post Bud, I didn't know about gun cite. It looks like all of the facts have the references attached to them. That is exactly what I was looking for.
 
One of the Strongest

The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.........Hubert H. Humphrey
 
Its long, but I think its pertinent to this thread:

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless...

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells

you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all:

"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

The national media picks it up, then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial..

The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you..

Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted

and is now serving a life term..

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.
The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.
(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.
Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.
Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.
Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?
 
What I have found odd in arguing in favor of the 2A and against any additional laws is that if you strictly look at firearm stats it is the handgun that is used overwhelmingly in crimes but this time around the focus is on 2 recent events and the AR. But still it is the handgun that makes the most sense stats wise to attack and yet the antis are staying clear. It is odd. Maybe it is the increase in women CCWs and they think it is a harder fight. That said, the AR compared to other semis is light and easy to use even for petite women. Whatever the reason, the 2A fight is being fought by more than just men in this day and age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top