Your assertion is patently false. Hitler did NOT disarm the civilian population. Germany did that at the end of World War II in rejection of the militarism of Hitler. Stop proliferating outright lies.

@wordywalt
[citizenwells.com]

"Gun control dictator tool, Nazi Germany first Jews then german people then conquered nations, Nazi Weapons Act of 1938, Gun owner lists used to disarm"

you should be careful about accusing ppl of 'outright lies'

technically, he totally banned the Jews from owning any weapons whatsoever, initially. but then when the nazis had the lists they were able to seize weapons from any ppl they considered dissidents.

@callmedubious You implied that Hitler enacted broad gun control. While his act was vile, it was an act only against a group he was trying to defile. Similarly, his acts imposing gun control on conquered territory is exactly what one would expect from a conquering force. We imposed gun control on all Germans immediately following World War II.

Sensible gun control simply stops and begins the proliferation of guns sponsored by the NRA, the gun industry, and the Republican party. I know for a fact of having lived through the times, NO ONE carried guns in public except for the police. The ONLY exceptions were people who handled expensive things and might be vulnerable to robbery. Concealed weapons only were allowed in such cases with a license. Through most of the 1960s, it was to own a functioning military assault weapon. Through 2000, I never saw on non-police person carrying a gun in public.

Today I see people actually carrying weapons in public. Do I feel safer? Hell, no. It means that we have more and more potently violent, irrational, and unstable people who could get angry and shoot at any time. There is no way in hell that we need that.

@wordywalt ,
you can quibble over semantics; but the facts are that after totally disarming the Jews and then dissidents, the only gun owners left were his supporters.

Even as a former veteran and hunter, I support a complete ban of all automatic and semi-

I don’t advocate the use of guns in public for one minute, but I suspect it goes deeper. Britain is a gun less culture with regard to the citizenry but currently there is a proliferation of random knife attacks. It’s as if there is some psychological driver for random violence and whatever is to hand will suffice. As a result, I doubt that gun restrictions would make much deeper difference other than the extent of damage. My conclusion is that there is another cause that needs to be addressed rather than availability of weaponary

@Geoffrey51 Well said ! I agree.

There will always be casualties when people show the courage to act in dangerous situations. Those young people knew the risks and chose to act. They are to be depicted as the heroes that they were. Republicans and the NRA are to be condemned for acting to enable and allow the proliferation of weapons of war in a civilian population.

@wordywalt "Republicans and the NRA are to be condemned for acting to enable and allow the proliferation of weapons of war in a civilian population." The Second Amendment is about hunting/sporting weapons then?

@dahermit Shotguns and lever-action and bolt-action rifles are all that a person needs under normal circumstances -- for hunting, controlling critters, and protection. .

@wordywalt You did not answer the question. "The Second Amendment is about hunting/sporting weapons then?" Does the Second Amendment state that a person has a right to own weapons that you deem they "need"?

@dahermit Are you claiming that a person has the right to own any weapon? A rank? A flamethrower? A claymore mine? A rocket launcher? A bazooka? If, so you are dead wrong. Laws prohibit the ownership of some weapons of war. If any weapons of war can and should be prohibited for private ownership, then all weapons of war can.

@wordywalt A strawman argument.

Were it not for the absolutely evil proliferation of guns, armed lunatic militias would not be possible.

"...the absolutely evil proliferation of guns...", "...armed lunatic militias...", are not indicative of a person who is in control of their emotions and can discuss an issue with dispassionate logic. In nearly all of the instances of mass shootings, especially school shootings, the perpetrators had obtained the guns used illegally which begs the question, what new law would have stopped those shootings? Or, are you content to just parrot the platitudes of anti-gun rhetoric?

"...but maybe their courage will make the so called responsible adults in congress take note and use their powers to effect new gun control laws." Can you give me an example of one of the existing gun control laws that have been shown to be effective? Was the "The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Pub.L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536, enacted November 30, 1993)", A.K.A. "The Brady Bill" effective?

@dahermit Oh let’s not bother doing anything then! Is that a better option ?

Evidently you do not consider Central and South American countries as "civilized"?

@dahermit Some of them are barely so, in my opinion. Costa Rica is a case apart, but light years ahead of the others. It sensibly has no Standing Army, and is light years ahead of most countries in looking after its environment, and ecology.

@Marionville My point is that the anti-gun community uses/fosters a platitude relative to "industrialized/advanced, etc., not having as many gun murders as the U.S. However when examined, it is clear that correlation does not rise to the level of evidence of causation. It is generally acknowledged in our country that poverty influences crime rates. Given that, it is notable that those relatively gun-murder free countries are the very same socialist counties that have less poverty and therefore less gang-related shootings (the majority of ours are gang-related). However, the anti-gun community ignores that correlation but at the same time ignores the fact that Central and South American countries have higher shooting rates than ours but much stricter gun laws.

@dahermit we are not going to have a meeting of minds on this issue, so I feel it’s unproductive to continue this thread. Let’s us just agree to differ, and part on good terms.

@Marionville Or, your perception and established beliefs on this issue are not defensible and you do not have the knowledge or the courage to defend them. You would rather go on believing the rhetoric as it has been handed to you by the equally ignorant.

@dahermit I am trying not to be rude..so I will not reply further...think what you like about my motives. I can assure you I neither lack courage or knowledge, but have better things to do with my time than to flog a dead horse, so go find someone else to argue with.

Standing together does not seem to be working for the people in Egipt. They demonstrate, demonstrate, and demonstrate, but all they get is a military government instead of a democracy. Would they have a better or worse chance of changing their totalitarian regime if they were armed with guns instead of placards? Did the American colonists join together and demonstrate, or were the Brits driven from the colonies by force of arms?

Courage is imperative, no question. But why take a knife to a gunfight? That is a bit along the lines of saying "I'll pray for you" to a medical emergency...

@Rustee I meant it takes courage to act. Republicans thinks more guns in schools will stop shootings even though it never works. If people work together and start movements we’ll have a better job of stoping shootings.

@Tyrantmike " Republicans thinks more guns in schools will stop shootings even though it never works." It will not work unless the guns and methods are done properly. If "...guns never works.", then the American bases in Afghanistan would not require guns nor would first responders at school shootings. Don't get drawn into a "strawman" argument.