2nd Amendment in 1930s Germany?

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by icenine

. . . I hate people even implying that American presidents past or present dead or alive Republican or Democrat are anything similar to Hitler.

There's a disconnect here.

The original question was whether a second amendment would have prevented Hitler's reign. I merely think it would not have. Citizens are simply too well behaved to shoot each other over political differences. They have to be pushed pretty hard to start shooting back at their own government and, since that is the way they behave, the second amendment has no net effect on reigning in government.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by ebacon

There's a disconnect here.

The original question was whether a second amendment would have prevented Hitler's reign. I merely think it would not have. Citizens are simply too well behaved to shoot each other over political differences. They have to be pushed pretty hard to start shooting back at their own government and, since that is the way they behave, the second amendment has no net effect on reigning in government.

Yes, we have gotten a bit off track (as usual). I don't believe it would have either. The one thing the German example, and others, shows is that you can't necessarily depend on the military to turn on the government. Soldiers follow orders. And the military is a department of the government after all. That's where the military paychecks and all associated bennies come from.

And, honestly, I think that, even here, if it came right down to it most of these NRA blowhards would hand over weapons with little more than a whimper. At the end of the day, they'll start worrying about how ending up dead or in jail would impact their families and so on. Oh, there'd be some, but not enough to make much difference.

Remember what Uncle Ted bellowed last year? Well, where is it? Is he "dead or in jail". So full of shit................

The cat is out of the bag, it isn't 1790 anymore and the government has amassed far more deadly weapons and vast networks of military, intelligence and law enforcement agencies...........and everyone knows it. Hell, that's a big part of what all the fuss is about. Is anyone dumb enough to think Uncle Sam isn't watching for potential insurrectionists and making contingency plans? Who is it that decides who is an insurrectionist and who isn't? Your local Tea Party zealots? Oh, spare me, please.

Regards,
Dave

[icenine]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Yes, we have gotten a bit off track (as usual). I don't believe it would have either. The one thing the German example, and others, shows is that you can't necessarily depend on the military to turn on the government. Soldiers follow orders. And the military is a department of the government after all. That's where the military paychecks and all associated bennies come from.

And, honestly, I think that, even here, if it came right down to it most of these NRA blowhards would hand over weapons with little more than a whimper. At the end of the day, they'll start worrying about how ending up dead or in jail would impact their families and so on. Oh, there'd be some, but not enough to make much difference.

Remember what Uncle Ted bellowed last year? Well, where is it? Is he "dead or in jail". So full of shit................

The cat is out of the bag, it isn't 1790 anymore and the government has amassed far more deadly weapons and vast networks of military, intelligence and law enforcement agencies...........and everyone knows it. Hell, that's a big part of what all the fuss is about. Is anyone dumb enough to think Uncle Sam isn't watching for potential insurrectionists and making contingency plans? Who is it that decides who is an insurrectionist and who isn't? Your local Tea Party zealots? Oh, spare me, please.

Regards,
Dave

So your point is a well armed populace would not rise up and revolt against tyranny imposed from above, using Nazi Germany as your example. I can see that point. So arguments like having unlimited access to semi-automatic weapons in order to fight against a tyrannical Federal government is downright silly because at the end of the day the Feds would win since a well paid national military is on their side. Well maybe that is true but I have faith that our government and nation will never get to that point.

We could point to present day Syria as a point against your argument.However, the United States has a pretty good record of not opening fire on peaceful demonstrators, is a representative democratic republic that allows for the peaceful transfer of power, and is a bastion of religious and civilian liberty. We are not Assad's Syria or Nazi Germany.