Yes, And the same should go for: Knive and Fork owners Rope owners Chainsaw, axe, hammer and spike owners And especially Pillow owners!!!!
Why do you think you know everything. You really should seek help for this dreaded disease you have. Once again, you are wrong about me. I do not own a gun, but after reading all your posts, I am very tempted to buy one and pay you a visit. Also, correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't the first thing Adolph Hitler did when he came into power was remove all the guns from society. Interesting huh.
Adolph Hitler's Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 specifically outlawed firearms ownership by Jews and Gypsies and anti-Nazi opposition, successfully eliminating 13,000,000 of his foes and ensuring that Germany would be free of crime. One benefit of Hitler's policies was a series of highly effective population reduction and control programs. Hitler was the leader of one the world's most industrialized nations during his term in office. Under his leadership German leaders finally had a comprehensive policy of sensible gun control. The charismatic Nazi leader pioneered the "sporting use" test for firearms ownership, a concept that remains important to today's gun control advocates. Hitler has many successful U.S. imitators in the Gun Control Hall of Fame, many of them are well-known politicians and public figures. Hitler did it for the children. The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 stands as a shining example of Hitler's genius and efficiency.
Writing in The Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Stephen Halbrook demonstrates that German Jews and other German opponents of Hitler were not destined to be helpless and passive victims. (A magazine article by Halbrook offers a shorter version of the story, along with numerous photographs. Halbrook's Arizona article is also available as a chapter in the book Death by Gun Control, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.) Halbrook details how, upon assuming power, the Nazis relentlessly and ruthlessly disarmed their German opponents. The Nazis feared the Jews â many of whom were front-line veterans of World War One â so much that Jews were even disarmed of knives and old sabers. The Nazis did not create any new firearms laws until 1938. Before then, they were able to use the Weimar Republic's gun controls to ensure that there would be no internal resistance to the Hitler regime. In 1919, facing political and economic chaos and possible Communist revolution after Germany's defeat in the First World War, the Weimar Republic enacted the Regulation of the Council of the People's Delegates on Weapons Possession. The new law banned the civilian possession of all firearms and ammunition, and demanded their surrender "immediately." Once the political and economic situation stabilized, the Weimar Republic created a less draconian gun-control law. The law was similar to, although somewhat milder than, the gun laws currently demanded by the American gun-control lobby. The Weimar Law on Firearms and Ammunition required a license to engage in any type of firearm business. A special license from the police was needed to either purchase or carry a firearm. The German police were granted complete discretion to deny licenses to criminals or individuals the police deemed untrustworthy. Unlimited police discretion over citizen gun acquisition is the foundation of the "Brady II" proposal introduced by Handgun Control, Inc., (now called the Brady Campaign) in 1994. Under the Weimar law, no license was needed to possess a firearm in the home unless the citizen owned more than five guns of a particular type or stored more than 100 cartridges. The law's requirements were more relaxed for firearms of a "hunting" or "sporting" type. Indeed, the Weimar statute was the world's first gun law to create a formal distinction between sporting and non-sporting firearms. On the issues of home gun possession and sporting guns, the Weimar law was not as stringent as the current Massachusetts gun law, or some of modern proposals supported by American gun-control lobbyists. Significantly, the Weimar law required the registration of most lawfully owned firearms, as do the laws of some American states. In Germany, the Weimar registration program law provided the information which the Nazis needed to disarm the Jews and others considered untrustworthy. The Nazi disarmament campaign that began as soon as Hitler assumed power in 1933. While some genocidal governments (such as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia) dispensed with lawmaking, the Nazi government followed the German predilection for the creation of large volumes of written rules and regulations. Yet it was not until March 1938 (the same month that Hitler annexed Austria in the Anschluss) that the Nazis created their own Weapons Law. The new law formalized what had been the policy imposed by Hitler using the Weimar Law: Jews were prohibited from any involvement in any firearm business. On November 9, 1938, the Nazis launched the Kristallnacht, pogrom, and unarmed Jews all over Germany were attacked by government-sponsored mobs. In conjunction with Kristallnacht, the government used the administrative authority of the 1938 Weapons Law to require immediate Jewish surrender of all firearms and edged weapons, and to mandate a sentence of death or 20 years in a concentration camp for any violation. Even after 1938, the German gun laws were not prohibitory. They simply gave the government enough information and enough discretion to ensure that victims inside Germany would not be able to fight back. Under the Hitler regime, the Germans had created a superbly trained and very large military â the most powerful military the world had ever seen until then. Man-for-man, the Nazis had greater combat effectiveness than every other army in World War II, and were finally defeated because of the overwhelming size of the Allied armies and the immensely larger economic resources of the Allies. Despite having an extremely powerful army, the Nazis still feared the civilian possession of firearms by hostile civilians. Events in 1943 proved that the fear was not mere paranoia. As knowledge of the death camps leaked out, determined Jews rose up in arms in Tuchin, Warsaw, Bialystok, Vilna, and elsewhere. Jews also joined partisan armies in Eastern Europe in large numbers, and amazingly, even organized escapes and revolts in the killing centers of Treblinka and Auschwitz. There are many books which recount these heroic stories of resistance. Yuri Suhl's They Fought Back (1967) is a good summary showing that hundreds of thousands of Jews did fight. The book Escape from Sobibor and the eponymous movie (1987) tell the amazing story how Russian Jewish prisoners of war organized a revolt that permanently destroyed one of the main death camps. It took the Nazis months to destroy the Jews who rose up in the Warsaw ghetto, who at first were armed with only a few firearms that had been purchased on the black market, stolen or obtained from the Polish underground. Halbrook contends that the history of Germany might have been changed if more of its citizens had been armed, and if the right to bear arms had been enshrined it Germany's culture and constitution. Halbrook points out that while resistance took place in many parts of occupied Europe, there was almost no resistance in Germany itself, because the Nazis had enjoyed years in which they could enforce the gun laws to ensure that no potential opponent of the regime had the means to resist. No one can foresee with certainty which countries will succumb to genocidal dictatorship. Germany under the Weimar Republic was a democracy in a nation with a very long history of much greater tolerance for Jews than existed in France, England, or Russia, or almost anywhere else. Zimbabwe's current gun laws were created when the nation was the British colony of Rhodesia, and the authors of those laws did not know that the laws would one day be enforced by an African Hitler bent on mass extermination. One never knows if one will need a fire extinguisher. Many people go their whole lives without needing to use a fire extinguisher, and most people never need firearms to resist genocide. But if you don't prepare to have a life-saving tool on hand during an unexpected emergency, then you and your family may not survive. In the book Children of the Flames, Auschwitz survivor Menashe Lorinczi recounts what happened when the Soviet army liberated the camp: the Russians disarmed the SS guards. Then, two emaciated Jewish inmates, now armed with guns taken from the SS, systematically exacted their revenge on a large formation of SS men. The disarmed SS passively accepted their fate. After Lorinczi moved to Israel, he was often asked by other Israelis why the Jews had not fought back against the Germans. He replied that many Jews did fight. He then recalled the sudden change in the behavior of the Jews and the Germans at Auschwitz, once the Russian army's new "gun control" policy changed who had the guns there: "And today, when I am asked that question, I tell people it doesn't matter whether you're Hungarian, Polish, Jewish, or German: If you don't have a gun, you have nothing."
Don't be shocked - YOU were being irrational and illogical. If bank safes can be cracked, why would you presume that ANY private person would have a MORE secure safe? This is an example of how illogical your argument is. You irrationally presume to dictate the necessity for an individual to have totally undefeatable security or you will blame them for what someone else does with a stolen weapon. However, you do not seek to affix the same necessity on automobile owners (there are more people killed by autos than by guns each year - a great many of them killed or injured by those driving stolen cars), poisonous materials that might be stored on a person's premises (e.g., rat poison, gasoline, etc.) but potentially used to harm others, etc. At least if you applied your idea of ultimate responsibility in that way, you'd at least be consistent (albeit still irrational). Reread the original post. It was "out of his possession for two years" because it was SOLD. Your original "compromise" suggested that even after selling the gun (and thuse out of his control), you expected the original owner to be held fully responsible for what someone else does with it. Again, totally irrational. Unfortunately, you are no where near reasonable. Your premise that the gun must be sold only to a firearms dealer is counter to existing rules of personal property disposition. Do you similarly require a car owner to only sell their car to a licensed auto dealer? On the other hand, if you wanted to stipulate that a person selling their gun must file a report with the state identifying who they sold it to (as many states require with the disposition of licensed automobiles) - THAT would be reasonable. Wow, an actual fact - albeit laced with inane hyperbole. A weapon that is not in your direct control of course cannot be used by you. Then again, a car that is not in your direct control cannot be used by you either - so are they unnecessary? Of course, if you're arguing that people should be permitted to carry their guns with them at all times... But then again, we're not talking about "using" a gun that's not in the person's direct control. If a burgler is stupid enough to break into my house at night while I'm there - mores the pity for him, because the gun will be in my direct control. If I am not in the house, the guns are not in my direct control - but they are also not just laying around on the kitchen table either. While my guns are secured when I'm not there, your statement is also true of a myriad products or items that are also dangerous or lethal if misused. Should you be thrown in jail for manslaughter if a friend of your child manages to nypass the anti-child device that you diligently placed on your kitchen cabinets - and subsequently drank a bottle of bleach? What does that mean? Unfortunately, like most anti-gun fanatics, reasonable due diligence and precaution isn't sufficient. You expect absolute perfection in an imperfect world - but only as it relates to your single fanaticism, excluding all other potentially dangerous items that exist in everyone's homes. Luckily, this is more idle hyperbole - since you have no power. But what's really sad, until you and the rest of the extremists on both sides of this issue stop breathing all that ozone, there won't be much material progress in establishing reasonable nationwide rules.
"I do not own a gun, but after reading all your posts, I am very tempted to buy one and pay you a visit." Please, resist temptation.
Do you have any idea how stupid and potentially risky to your wealth and or freadom a remark such as the one suggesting you would like to shoot me is? Tell you what I am going to do. I will accept a public apology, and quickly, or I will haunt your stupid ass by demanding that Baron ban it. And should he refuse, there will be hell to pay. You will learn that one does not go around threatening people. Now on to your second item. No one suggested taking away guns. Did they? No, but unable to deal with the subject at hand, you attempt to change it. BTW - in case you think that I am kidding, try me. I will hear from you within 24 hours with an apology, or we won't be troubled with you any longer.