Mike OTDP
Member
The New York Times is a long-standing Leftist propaganda rag. I'll point out that in most of Europe, the shooting sports are perfectly respectable...and the British gun laws are considered insane.
Firearms Licensing Hurdles Around The World
- Thread starter Speedo66
- Start date
- Status
Jews had a unique history in Europe. In middle age Europe lending money for interest was considered usury.
This is based on the same part of Jewish law of the bible that the Jews instead interpreted to mean it was only prohibited to take advantage of other Jews that way, but is okay to make such loans to others. For example Deuteronomy 15:3
Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again: but that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release;
Or 6 For the Lord thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.
Christians applied this to all, but Jews interpreted it to mean they could charge interest to everyone else and in doing so shall reign over many nations of the world, and not be ruled by them. Jews will rule the world by debt and the financial system.
In Europe Cannon law often covered a lot of the law and was under the control of the Christian church. Jews essentially became exempt from a lot of Cannon law by still being a religion of the bible and so tolerated, but by having the ability to self govern many of those aspects didn't have to apply that same restriction to themselves.
Giving Jews special rights was actually what would cause most of the friction in Europe.
Today usury means excessive interest, but just charging interest for profit often considered usury in the middle ages.
Guess what demographic most people were in debt to during any economic downturn?
Before the merchant class and change from aristocracy in Europe in all the waves of rebellions though the level of power was less, and only minor aristocrats had liquidity to borrow and pay back loans regularly, and it was seen as sinful and only done for emergencies by a good Christian of the time period. So its impact on society was limited to funding some small ambitions of the gentry.
Later though when the masses in general used loans the level of power became enormous.
This meant Jews got a several hundred year head start in banking over most others in Europe (and longer in the world as even Jesus was killed after and for knocking over the money lending table in the temple), and would become disproportionately powerful once consumerism and industrialization turned us into a mass transaction through bank society.
Most pogroms in Europe you find are more connected to the population owing money than just because they were Jewish. Which is why they often are when crops fail and loans due cannot be paid or similar bad times in Europe.
That would still be the situation up until the Great Depression felt worldwide while Germany was given the extra burden of using a lot of its GDP to repay all the winners in WW1.
In most of history just getting through the economic downturn would resolve the animosity. In industrialized Germany during the Great Depression that didn't work out. They also didn't decide on the Final Solution until they already knew they were going to lose the war. It was more of a decision to kill all jews before they lost power than something they planned to do. As a result it was hard to predict the most scientifically advanced nation in the world at the time would decide that to preserve their ethnic identity they would erase other ethnic groups in the region. In retrospect in should be expected and DNA will probably be used to do some similar things in some parts of the world in the future. Erasing certain genes from the population in a more scientific racism or government supported decision that some genes pose a risk to the population.
Considering the German Military was the best in the world at the time, and had the support of most of the population in the home territories, it is hard to imagine the Jews armed with small arms would have made a big enough difference.
The Germans would not have been deterred losing even 10,000 soldiers at that time, and I cannot expect they would have lost too many more fighting rebels with organized military forces that the local populations all spied on and reported on.
The Germans also were brutal to towns even near where rebels operated from.
I recall when one high level nazi was assassinated by partisans they slaughtered an entire town and bulldozed it over so you couldn't even tell it once existed.
When much of the general population actually agrees with what they are doing and facing risks like that for not reporting activity or suspicions to the authorities, armed rebels would face an uphill battle.
I recall southern France had the best success for Rebels because it had far less of the population that supported the ideals of the Nazis or their racial views. While in the North they surrendered and agreed far more readily and became Vichy France.
The Soviets at the time also were more likely to kill you than the Germans. Having been through Civil War and mass starvation since the the revolution, and forming gulag forced labor prison systems you were likely to die of starvation or injury in.
They may have been less concerned with your ethnicity, but were more deadly than the German government to civilians for Decades by the time of the Final Solution. Most that died were between the Germans and the Soviet Union, and many that lived went to America or Israel in the 1920s and 1930s when times got really bad in that region.
This is based on the same part of Jewish law of the bible that the Jews instead interpreted to mean it was only prohibited to take advantage of other Jews that way, but is okay to make such loans to others. For example Deuteronomy 15:3
Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again: but that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release;
Or 6 For the Lord thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.
Christians applied this to all, but Jews interpreted it to mean they could charge interest to everyone else and in doing so shall reign over many nations of the world, and not be ruled by them. Jews will rule the world by debt and the financial system.
In Europe Cannon law often covered a lot of the law and was under the control of the Christian church. Jews essentially became exempt from a lot of Cannon law by still being a religion of the bible and so tolerated, but by having the ability to self govern many of those aspects didn't have to apply that same restriction to themselves.
Giving Jews special rights was actually what would cause most of the friction in Europe.
Today usury means excessive interest, but just charging interest for profit often considered usury in the middle ages.
Guess what demographic most people were in debt to during any economic downturn?
Before the merchant class and change from aristocracy in Europe in all the waves of rebellions though the level of power was less, and only minor aristocrats had liquidity to borrow and pay back loans regularly, and it was seen as sinful and only done for emergencies by a good Christian of the time period. So its impact on society was limited to funding some small ambitions of the gentry.
Later though when the masses in general used loans the level of power became enormous.
This meant Jews got a several hundred year head start in banking over most others in Europe (and longer in the world as even Jesus was killed after and for knocking over the money lending table in the temple), and would become disproportionately powerful once consumerism and industrialization turned us into a mass transaction through bank society.
Most pogroms in Europe you find are more connected to the population owing money than just because they were Jewish. Which is why they often are when crops fail and loans due cannot be paid or similar bad times in Europe.
That would still be the situation up until the Great Depression felt worldwide while Germany was given the extra burden of using a lot of its GDP to repay all the winners in WW1.
In most of history just getting through the economic downturn would resolve the animosity. In industrialized Germany during the Great Depression that didn't work out. They also didn't decide on the Final Solution until they already knew they were going to lose the war. It was more of a decision to kill all jews before they lost power than something they planned to do. As a result it was hard to predict the most scientifically advanced nation in the world at the time would decide that to preserve their ethnic identity they would erase other ethnic groups in the region. In retrospect in should be expected and DNA will probably be used to do some similar things in some parts of the world in the future. Erasing certain genes from the population in a more scientific racism or government supported decision that some genes pose a risk to the population.
Considering the German Military was the best in the world at the time, and had the support of most of the population in the home territories, it is hard to imagine the Jews armed with small arms would have made a big enough difference.
The Germans would not have been deterred losing even 10,000 soldiers at that time, and I cannot expect they would have lost too many more fighting rebels with organized military forces that the local populations all spied on and reported on.
The Germans also were brutal to towns even near where rebels operated from.
I recall when one high level nazi was assassinated by partisans they slaughtered an entire town and bulldozed it over so you couldn't even tell it once existed.
When much of the general population actually agrees with what they are doing and facing risks like that for not reporting activity or suspicions to the authorities, armed rebels would face an uphill battle.
I recall southern France had the best success for Rebels because it had far less of the population that supported the ideals of the Nazis or their racial views. While in the North they surrendered and agreed far more readily and became Vichy France.
The Soviets at the time also were more likely to kill you than the Germans. Having been through Civil War and mass starvation since the the revolution, and forming gulag forced labor prison systems you were likely to die of starvation or injury in.
They may have been less concerned with your ethnicity, but were more deadly than the German government to civilians for Decades by the time of the Final Solution. Most that died were between the Germans and the Soviet Union, and many that lived went to America or Israel in the 1920s and 1930s when times got really bad in that region.
Last edited:
Arms control is control of sources of power. Government always creates a tiered compartmentalized system. This is to tier power.
Population of civilians disarmed, except for minority of tightly restricted hunters.
Low level local law enforcement lightly armed to be able to deal with disarmed civilians.
Regional law enforcement with greater resources and some militant capabilities greater than local law enforcement.
With national level police and then military having greater arms than any of those. And since you cannot control other nations putting an upper level cap on military capability is avoided even though everyone knows you need one. And the military and federal government and federal law enforcement all being part of the same thing deploying overlapping forces in many nations.
Of course this tiered vision of government utopia does not actually work because police officers go on rampages sometimes, and other members of society turn on the civilians. Even some organized crime or drug cartels become well armed and common thugs even acquire some things. All of which then have the upper hand against any civilian playing by the rules. So the value of regular civilian life just becomes lower than everyone else.
A right to arms intended to give the civilian population parity with military forces throws a wrench in that system. Because you already need to put civilians several tiers up that ladder or the premise and purpose of the protection becomes null and void. Yet it still does not protect the population from itself. And why I don't think the true intent has been followed since it led to the Civil War with armed men being quickly recruited to fight armed men and leading to the greatest rapid loss of American life in our history. As the population trusts itself less and less they are more easily preyed on by the normal and typical powers that always want to limit who has effective arms for the same reason everywhere. Because government always has and tries to take away arms to reduce threats and required resources to rule over everyone.
Top level leaders naturally do not want the rabble armed with effective fighting weapons. Yet the ability to deter through effective arms that actually pose a deadly realistic threat to military forces is the whole purpose behind the 2nd Amendment.
Once you limit the arms to things worse than held by even a third world insurgent easily defeated by a bought and paid for private security force you have removed the real meaning of the power behind the right. Then you just have the general low level right to defense from similarly low level civilians. Which is still a lot more than many in the world have, but doesn't hold enough power on its own to deter just eroding it even more.
Jihadis have belt fed guns, truck mounted auto cannons well beyond the power of the ..50 BMG, RPGs, and reliable select fire military grade rifles. And at least some basic indirect fire like mortars.
Yet they still barely can hold out against a much smaller force of modern professional forces.
If the US citizen cannot even legally own something capable of taking out third world military aircraft, it has no chance against what it would actually face. Yet we know this is the case because of the risk to commercial aircraft, the giant tin cans of the sky packed with large numbers of people.
So if you cannot have something that poses a risk to a big slow lumbering airliner you have minimal chance against a nimble fighter or bomber. So the 2nd is already reduced to at most an armed capability of supporting those that actually are armed well enough to fight such threats.
Then even the most basic military land armor is designed to defeat .50BMG rounds. With autocannon rounds even larger the standard size armament they expect to face.
This means they are virtually immune to civilian legal and widely owned arms in America.
So you can't fight the air, you can't fight the ground. What can you fight?
Lacking even the typical arms of an infantry unit they are going to be useful against little except other civilians. Which they will be readily turned against if the manpower is needed as a low level police force in time of strife and starvation when everyone wants a job.
Our laws also do not support even basic self defense. If armed and armored threats are actually a threat, and the mass killers or gang hitmen often are armed and armored, then how can you legitimately have laws against armor piercing handgun rounds while limiting civilians to handguns in most of their lives.
Obviously it is to give law enforcement an added layer of protection, but at the expense of civilian capability of even basic defense against increasingly common threats. So how the hell is that Constitutional?
All you can have is a weak round unable to defeat modern protection, and also we want to take most guns that defeat that protection with standard ammunition.
Sounds a lot like they just don't want civilians to have power most places doesn't it?
Population of civilians disarmed, except for minority of tightly restricted hunters.
Low level local law enforcement lightly armed to be able to deal with disarmed civilians.
Regional law enforcement with greater resources and some militant capabilities greater than local law enforcement.
With national level police and then military having greater arms than any of those. And since you cannot control other nations putting an upper level cap on military capability is avoided even though everyone knows you need one. And the military and federal government and federal law enforcement all being part of the same thing deploying overlapping forces in many nations.
Of course this tiered vision of government utopia does not actually work because police officers go on rampages sometimes, and other members of society turn on the civilians. Even some organized crime or drug cartels become well armed and common thugs even acquire some things. All of which then have the upper hand against any civilian playing by the rules. So the value of regular civilian life just becomes lower than everyone else.
A right to arms intended to give the civilian population parity with military forces throws a wrench in that system. Because you already need to put civilians several tiers up that ladder or the premise and purpose of the protection becomes null and void. Yet it still does not protect the population from itself. And why I don't think the true intent has been followed since it led to the Civil War with armed men being quickly recruited to fight armed men and leading to the greatest rapid loss of American life in our history. As the population trusts itself less and less they are more easily preyed on by the normal and typical powers that always want to limit who has effective arms for the same reason everywhere. Because government always has and tries to take away arms to reduce threats and required resources to rule over everyone.
Top level leaders naturally do not want the rabble armed with effective fighting weapons. Yet the ability to deter through effective arms that actually pose a deadly realistic threat to military forces is the whole purpose behind the 2nd Amendment.
Once you limit the arms to things worse than held by even a third world insurgent easily defeated by a bought and paid for private security force you have removed the real meaning of the power behind the right. Then you just have the general low level right to defense from similarly low level civilians. Which is still a lot more than many in the world have, but doesn't hold enough power on its own to deter just eroding it even more.
Jihadis have belt fed guns, truck mounted auto cannons well beyond the power of the ..50 BMG, RPGs, and reliable select fire military grade rifles. And at least some basic indirect fire like mortars.
Yet they still barely can hold out against a much smaller force of modern professional forces.
If the US citizen cannot even legally own something capable of taking out third world military aircraft, it has no chance against what it would actually face. Yet we know this is the case because of the risk to commercial aircraft, the giant tin cans of the sky packed with large numbers of people.
So if you cannot have something that poses a risk to a big slow lumbering airliner you have minimal chance against a nimble fighter or bomber. So the 2nd is already reduced to at most an armed capability of supporting those that actually are armed well enough to fight such threats.
Then even the most basic military land armor is designed to defeat .50BMG rounds. With autocannon rounds even larger the standard size armament they expect to face.
This means they are virtually immune to civilian legal and widely owned arms in America.
So you can't fight the air, you can't fight the ground. What can you fight?
Lacking even the typical arms of an infantry unit they are going to be useful against little except other civilians. Which they will be readily turned against if the manpower is needed as a low level police force in time of strife and starvation when everyone wants a job.
Our laws also do not support even basic self defense. If armed and armored threats are actually a threat, and the mass killers or gang hitmen often are armed and armored, then how can you legitimately have laws against armor piercing handgun rounds while limiting civilians to handguns in most of their lives.
Obviously it is to give law enforcement an added layer of protection, but at the expense of civilian capability of even basic defense against increasingly common threats. So how the hell is that Constitutional?
All you can have is a weak round unable to defeat modern protection, and also we want to take most guns that defeat that protection with standard ammunition.
Sounds a lot like they just don't want civilians to have power most places doesn't it?
Last edited:
Education and storage and safety requirements are widely used to restrict firearm ownership to wealthy land owners or to a lesser extent those rural enough to have legitimate need to kill rural pests.
You must have the money and time to attend a gun club or other such thing, invest in more expensive storage, and typically have a home. Hunting is typically on private land so you are often wealthier than the average citizen to even have a place to hunt.
By having laws requiring they be stored in approved storage meeting a standard they are more secure, but the process to even get inspected can be used as a barrier to deny or delay anyone as long as desired or forever. It also means they are not likely young or in an apartment. It adds to the initial cost and deters even more.
The cost to be compliant many places is several times the cost of the firearm, and so most people are established and middle aged before they even have the ability to take an interest in firearms. This I am sure reduces problems with firearms, but also means people do not have them for self defense.
Also the storage requirements of being really well secured and often unloaded or even stored separately from ammo or ammo likewise required to be locked up means that self defense is officially made impractical. For you would need to know there is a threat and retrieve both firearm and ammo separately and load them while meeting other self defense requirements in a land that often has a duty to retreat. If you have that much time you probably could have been halfway down the block and surrendered your home and your family and pets to a predator before you have a loaded gun in your hand.
The laws put in place to reduce the danger they pose tend to limit their ability to be retrieved unexpectedly when someone poses a justifiable lethal threat.
So the law effectively reduces firearms to just being good for hunting or rural pest control. Or the offensive uses they still end up being involved in anyways.
You must have the money and time to attend a gun club or other such thing, invest in more expensive storage, and typically have a home. Hunting is typically on private land so you are often wealthier than the average citizen to even have a place to hunt.
By having laws requiring they be stored in approved storage meeting a standard they are more secure, but the process to even get inspected can be used as a barrier to deny or delay anyone as long as desired or forever. It also means they are not likely young or in an apartment. It adds to the initial cost and deters even more.
The cost to be compliant many places is several times the cost of the firearm, and so most people are established and middle aged before they even have the ability to take an interest in firearms. This I am sure reduces problems with firearms, but also means people do not have them for self defense.
Also the storage requirements of being really well secured and often unloaded or even stored separately from ammo or ammo likewise required to be locked up means that self defense is officially made impractical. For you would need to know there is a threat and retrieve both firearm and ammo separately and load them while meeting other self defense requirements in a land that often has a duty to retreat. If you have that much time you probably could have been halfway down the block and surrendered your home and your family and pets to a predator before you have a loaded gun in your hand.
The laws put in place to reduce the danger they pose tend to limit their ability to be retrieved unexpectedly when someone poses a justifiable lethal threat.
So the law effectively reduces firearms to just being good for hunting or rural pest control. Or the offensive uses they still end up being involved in anyways.
Last edited:
P5 Guy
Member
Wouldn't it be great if part of the physical-ed curriculum in elementary schools was firearms safety along the lines of the NRA's Eddie Eagle?
- Status
Similar threads
