Posted: 3/1/2004 8:11:18 AM EDT
|
Hello fellow firearm fans. I'll be making a speech on the second amendment in my class this coming week. I need some ammunition to support it. I figured out that the best way to end my speech is by mentioning how Hitler took away the peoples' guns before he took over. Does anyone know the validity of this? I also want to mention Switzerland's situation. I know they have gun control, but not similar to what the liberals want to do in our country. Please give me some other facts that are worth mentioning. I think it would be great to educate the uneducated about the facts of the whole 2nd amendment issue. Thanks in advance. |
|
Quoted: I figured out that the best way to end my speech is by mentioning how Hitler took away the peoples' guns before he took over. Does anyone know the validity of this? I KNOW I have read that this is actually very inaccurate - but it has taken on the momentum of an urban legend, and practially everywhere you search on the web, you come across quotes that supposedly support this. I've NEVER found any actual support for those quotes. In my recollection (but I cannot find the book - so maybe I'm just full of shit) it was the democratic Weimar Republic that instituted that vast bulk of the gun laws in Germany BEFORE Hitler came into power. I believe there was some modification to regristration laws under Hitler's administration, but IIRC it was a minor thing. Keep in mind as well that Hitler did not get to power in a coup or a military takeover, he legally came to power by skillfully using the existing systems of a very democratic system. Also keep in mind that practically every family in Iraq - under the boot of a tyrannical dictator - seemed to have an AKM or some other firearm. |
|
Don't be afraid to throw some editorial in there too - remind people that it's [b]already [/b]illegal to rob or kill people whether by sword, bomb, poison or dropping cinder blocks on their heads. I know it's basic but people seem to forget this when debating firearms. They get caught up in the minutae. |
|
[url]http://www.guncite.com/[/url] [url]http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_history.html[/url] The second link is to our own National Archives, where it's described how the BoR relates to protection of individual rights and limitations on governmental power. |
|
geish, let me know if you would like more detailed info. I could send you a CD full of stuff, or just a few key quotes. Here's a sample ... "[Americans need not fear the federal government, because they enjoy] the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." --James Madison, Federalist #46 (1788). "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms . . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788). "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people . . . To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. . . . The best and most effectual way to enslave [the people] . . . is not [to] do it openly, but [to] weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." --George Mason, during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788). "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." --Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts’ Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788). |
|
Quoted: Don't be afraid to throw some editorial in there too - remind people that it's [b]already [/b]illegal to rob or kill people whether by sword, bomb, poison or dropping cinder blocks on their heads. I know it's basic but people seem to forget this when debating firearms. They get caught up in the minutae. Agreed - that's a really good point. I think it is a powerful argument to point out, that to a certain extent, gun control only affects the law-abding citizens, and they are not the problem. While the arguments can be made that gun control CAN have a variety of benefits (for example, a U.S. citizen is 30 times more likely to be killed by a firarm than a British citizen) - it is VERY unlikely that such gun control measures would work in the U.S. The reason is because the U.S. already has enormous numbers of firearms in circulation, and could fuel and almost unlimited black market in firearms for criminals, even in the most extreme case where all firearms were "banned" - again affecting only the law-abiding citizens, and not relaly hampering criminals. The reason it CAN work (to a degree) in some european countries, is that they never had a wide prevalence of firearms in their societies, so it was much easier to contain. An argument is always much stronger if you accept the counter-argument up front,a nd then explain why it's not really relevant or feasible. Building your argument is nice, but demolishing the other person's argument is MUCH more effective in convincing people to think, and maybe change their minds. Good luck. |