blah the Prussian

There is, has been, and always will be a huge flaw to this argument that I just love to address. You assume that the majority of people are willing to die for their rights. So, how about it? If a neo nazi came to power in the US, how many people do you think would be willing to die to overthrow them? There's also the issue that if he dictator came to power in the first place, they must have a pretty large base of support. In Nazi Germany, if you legalized guns, the first target of the people would be the Jews; the SS wouldn't even need to get involved.

I pretty much agree with this. In the Czech Republic, shit like this never happens. Why did you guys have to lose the war for independence? I really wish that hadn't happened. Could you please respond meaningfully, as opposed to using hyperbolic arguments that don't actually accomplish anything besides a halfhearted chuckle?

Seems pretty simple to me. If trained soldiers use it against other trained soldiers, its rob ably in our best interests to keep it out of the hands of sociopaths. How does any of this change the fact that you need a shitton of training to pull these moves off? Also, you need to be at a close range to pull off these attacks. Not so, as mentioned countless times before, with guns. Two problems with this. Firstly, the margin is not that far apart. Secondly, most car crashes are accidental, while most cases of gun violence are deliberate. A better comparison would be hit and runs vs shootings. I have attempted to shoot a bow and arrow with zero training. Its not easy. Plus, guns are far easier to come by than there alternate weapons you listed.

Incidentally, are there any stats on how many crimes are stopped by guns? Hell, how many rapes? Might be important to know.

Australia had quite the success with buying back guns. Why are the only people qualified to judge gun control those with gun training? Martial arts takes much more training that "how to go bangity bang or stabbitty stab 101". Finally, source, please.

Wait, but the Japanese internment camps were done by a democracy, so it is a completely different issue. Of course, if the Japanese Americans had tried to defend themselves, they likely would have been shot, as opposed to imprisoned, but then released. So the internment camps are a situation of government tyranny that would have made the situation worse. That is also a good point, however, this goes both ways. The internet would now make it even easier for the Nazis to spread their propaganda. Now, you don't need to leave your home to hear the speeches of the glorious Fuhrer! Plus, it is entirely possible to limit or even outright get rid of the internet; just look at North Korea. The same goes for totalitarian regimes. "Oh shit, the rebels are attacking the capitol building all at once!" or something like that. Your use of the ISIS example just proves my point, as they are certainly horrific tyrants. But how many of these civilians are combat ready? They outnumber the military for a reason; many are children, elderly, or disabled. If rebels force children and the elderly to fight for them, one must ask who the real bad guy is. You then have to factor out all the people who are too scared to fight (likely to be a lot) and once that is done you're left with a pretty pathetic fighting force. I agree about contacts, but they are irrelevant to guns. Now, if you look at a revolution in recent memory that has not devolved into an anarchistic clusterfuck (another problem with an armed population is that they make stuff like that easier) is Egypt. Now, the revolution that toppled Mubarak was non violent. The protestors mostly followed Gandhi's methods of not attacking the soldiers. This was what made the Egyptian army oust Mubarak, and that is the best way to make the enemy soldiers feel bad. If you attack them, you are likely to only alienate them from your cause further.

Here's the thing: there is one name that will blow 1.5 right open. It's called the Waffen SS. These were people, ordinary like you and I, who were the armed wing of the Nazi party. They did all kinds of shit, from guarding concentration camps to murdering civilians in the streets. The vast majority of them died unrepentant in the closing days of the Second World War. How about the Imperial Japanese Army? These men made a point of making life hell for any soldier that surrendered. They massacred innocent Chinese civilians left and right. Before the atomic bombs fell, they were perfectly willing to fight to the end. So tell me, if soldiers will suddenly have an epiphany from killing innocents, name a major mutiny that happened in history from them doing this that ended up mattering at all. Incidentally, Operation Valkyrie doesn't count, as von Stauffenberg was already opposed to Hitler. Do you think any one of these soldier went on to oppose Hitler? Think again. You give soldiers far too much credit. Plus, it doesn't seem too tactically sound to use a method of resistance that relies solely on the emotions of the other guy. Now, just a short point here, but a 1:1 ratio isn't enough if a traditional amount of people fight the government. That goes double if a lot of civilians agree with the government, as they did in Naz Germany, Imperial Japan, Maoist China, North Korea, and many other totalitarian societies. Finally, two. Well, you seem awfully self righteous, don't you? Sure, it's easy to boast about how you'll die a martyr for freedom and bullshit, but something tells me it'll be a different story if tanks rolled into your hometown. I myself would be perfectly willing to let the military take over. At least they'd get something done. Just because a government is autocratic doesn't mean they'd commit genocide or set up death camps.

I think he was using hyperbole. It doesn't matter in any case, as Himmler and Goering are gone as well.

Yeah, I'll concede that was a logical fallacy. What about my other statement?

Calm down, Germany has moved on from that. They payed reparations to Israel, the only nation in the European theatre compensated in any way for the people the Nazis murdered. We're suggesting that the methods used to denazify Germany could also be applied to the American South. You are right though, that slavery actually had a benefit, while it just seems baffling to me that Germany would waste so many potential soldiers and material against a people who could do them no harm. Lets just agree that slavery and the Holocaust were both bad and not start a victimization argument. We merely think that Germany has done a good job apologizing for its atrocities, especially when compared to nations who committed similar atrocities (Japan and Turkey) are considered. That example should be looked up to.

The US military had not been significantly overhauled in that time. Our command staff still believed that you could win a award by relying on the militia. Of course, that militia didn't do us much good when the British landed their elite Royal Marines in Washington and burned it. See, Klokinator, this is what happens when a bunch of fanatics who think their rights are being taken away go up against trained soldiers. Also, Klokinator, do you really support ALL manner of weapons being legal? What about Tanks? Should people have tanks? Or how about drones? Should we let private citizens blow up anyone they hate with drones? Your problem seems to be that you refuse to rely on the government for anything. To me, relying on the government seems like a swell idea. Here's some food for thought: there is very little chance a guy with a gun will do any noticeable damage to trained soldiers. Now, you talk all the time about democracy and freedom of speech, but tell me: how many people do you know who would be prepared to die for those rights if they were faced with that situation right then and there? I know I wouldn't. There is no way you would able to marshal enough people to fight a government you deem tyrannical. Also, if Grandpa with Alzheimer's has a gun, he can shoot the mailman thinking he's a murderer. There is no way in hell I'd allow him near a gun.

So your argument can be basically summed up as "whoever is doing the background checks has too much power." Okay, but how can that power be abused? Further, the second amendment was not made to protect the first, it was made out of military necessity because it was the only way under equipped US forces could hope to stop the British until the French came in to save our asses. That was why the Second Amendment was made, not to protect people. Finally, you have not provided a credible alternative to background checks, despite believing that it is bad for skinheads to have guns (hopefully). So, what's your plan there?

So should I wait to respond to Klokinators post until it goes into the gun control thread?

@Klokinator: would you be in favor of more intensive background tests? I was, incidentally, being a bit over anxious when I argued for an abolition of the second amendment. I retract that statement.

Oh, heritage is right. It's a shameful heritage, to be sure. The issue is that there would need to be some form of standardized Federal education system, and good luck getting the a South to sign onto that. You need a leader that's willing to do something like this. The Confederate flag should be banned, IMO. It represents a nation that broke off from the US illegally. Thus, to fly it represents loyalty to said nation, and thus treason. The banning of the flag would be a good first step to the alteration of the Southern culture. After that... fuck if I know.Edit: holy shit I'm actually in complete agreement with Chiki.

Oh no, I'm not going to pretend like we can change the opinions of a bunch of skinheads, but if normal, not openly racist southerners see the truth about the Confederacy and thus about racism it will be a step in the right direction.

Wow. That was like Mien Kamf lite. This again raises the problem of Confederate apologist. Notice how he argued that slaves were treated well? That's a staple ConAp argument. Again, the way to solve this is through a better education system. Imitating Germany's coverage of the Nazi era would be a good way to start.

Let me point out that it makes a huge difference if the partisans were in occupied Eastern Europe as opposed to Germany itself. If they're in occupied territory, they have much easier access to guns, they can coordinate with other resistance movements, some of which were comprised of ex military men, and they are not fighting their government. Also, the German resistance, crucially, never tried to face the SS head on, even if they had guns; their goal, according to the Wikipedia article you yourself posted, was to convince Wehrmacht officers to oppose Hitler. They did this because they knew they would have no hope of winning a rebellion against Hitler. Eventually, they succeeded with triggering a coup attempt that involved a huge number of the German military brass; even that failed. Against a population largely committed to evil, resistance is futile. I'll concede this point, but how many women actually carry a gun wherever they go?

Source? How many lives? Was it in Germany itself, or in occupied territories like Poland and France? Specifics, please.

Well, someone may have already responded to this and kicked your ass. It really wouldn't be hard to do. I wouldn't know, as my internet has been down for a time. However, I can't ignore the massive amount of cliches you use in this. Lets break it down. First, the issue of rape. So fine, you're a woman walking home late at night, you see a guy behind you, you get paranoid. You pull out your gun, and shoot him. Now, lets just go out on a limb and say the guy was not going to rape you. You just killed an innocent man, all out of paranoia, and it was made possible by guns. Plus, your "if we ban guns knives will just be used" goes both ways; a knife would be just as effective at stopping a rapist; just stab him and you're done. Plus, if a rapist is in knife range you can be pretty sure he's a rapist. Now, on to the point of tyrannical governments. The interesting thing with Hitler, and Stalin, and Kim Il Sung is that they faced no resistance. Let me tell you why. All of them set up massive cults of personality. If the German people had guns when Hitler came to power, do you think they'd use them to try to overthrow the Nazi party? No, they'd use them to kill as many Jews as possible, and all because the glorious Fuhrer said so. Dictators historically have made their people worship them before taking power, so they don't want to resist. When Mao gave a bunch of Chinese kids guns you know what happened? They went on a rampage and murdered those who opposed them. One can assume that, if tyranny rises in the US (almost impossible, but I'll humor you) then it will come to power in the same manner. These are the main two points I wanted to counter. Right now I'm too tired to say anything anyway. I'll continue this later.

Of course, the gunman probably would not have had that gun to begin with if guns were banned. That image itself, as well, is very biased; "war to disarm America"? Really? Citizens should not be trusted with weapons used on the field of battle. I'd question any argument used by the Tea Party.

I... really can't argue with that. Thanks for that. @ I have opinions: I think the general problem that Jon Stewart is getting at is Confederate apologist as a whole. You see, the generation of southerners immediately after the Civil War were unwilling to accept that their fathers were traitors who fought to preserve one of the most evil institutions in history. It didn't help that the official US government policy was to let Southerners get away with little more than a slap on the wrist. This generation taught their opinions to future generations, and the general affect is to create a subtle form of racism that leads to general apathy to events like this. Education is the key to solving this problem, but to do that you'd need a standardized education system; reading southern textbooks is often outright sickening. It's complicated, to say the least.

This, basically. The Second Amendment needs to be repealed for shit like this to stop. You cannot change the minds of people like this, so the best thing to do here is to force people to adhere to the basic rules of civilization.Edit so no double post: so Fox News is apparently calling this an anti Christian hate crime to try to link it to Islamic terrorism. Jesus Christ, need I say more? We need to stop shifting the responsibility away from those who deserve it, NOW.

The issue, I suppose, is that parents may resist it. Homeschooling could mean that they can brainwash a whole new generation of white supremacists.

Yeah, this is pretty obviously racially motivated. What really sucks is that there is no discernible way to fix this. Wouldn't multiculturalism only make people like this more angry? Of course, a good way to start is to make normal people treat shit like this the right way. I don't know, I'm not a politician. It will be interesting to see the reaction of the European media, though.