Dude, that's a point against gun control as far as I'm concerned. Historically, gun control has some pretty racist roots. Just like drug bans.

 

step back and realize when I'm actually bringing up something that's directly in your favor.

I realize that, but I'm sick of liberals talking about race. I'm sick of hearing about it. Leave it alone, quit bringing it up like someone is paying you to.

I realize that, but I'm sick of liberals talking about race. I'm sick of hearing about it. Leave it alone, quit bringing it up like someone is paying you to.

 

LOL

I realize that, but I'm sick of liberals talking about race. I'm sick of hearing about it. Leave it alone, quit bringing it up like someone is paying you to.

 

nah.

I realize that, but I'm sick of liberals talking about race. I'm sick of hearing about it. Leave it alone, quit bringing it up like someone is paying you to.

 

This is because I am white, isn't it?

white dudes "sick of" "talking about race," news at 11

Follow up story: Guilty white people cant stop bringing up how post-racial they are: When will we all have been reminded enough? This reporter's journey through white guilt and why we just cant let go.

Apparently you can bring up Nazi history, but if the history includes black people, you've delved into white guilt.

as long as we recognize that duke has admitted that whitey is, in fact, guilty.

Apparently you can bring up Nazi history, but if the history includes black people, you've delved into white guilt.

I was honestly just trying to beat him the punch. You know once slavery is brought up its essentially a race to the Holocaust.

I was honestly just trying to beat him the punch. You know once slavery is brought up its essentially a race to the Holocaust.

 

idgi the racist history of gun control, that it was primarily used to keep guns out of the hands of blacks who actually were being violently repressed by the state, is a huge point in your favor. but you're objecting to me bringing it up? bizarre.

duke change your avatar right now.

what was it?

no he should change to the jpeg pettie posted

UH OH HE BROUGHT UP SLAVERY, I MUST BE WRONG. The Nazi's took guns away in the 30's, then went on the slaughter the Jews. Sorry dude, but the Holocaust in the caboose on the liberal pity train, you cannot top that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

ah, i see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

I'm not a big fan of "Godwin's Law." It serves to separate the evils of the Nazi regime as some other-wordly horror, something un-human.

NRA wins again! Wild west here we come!

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/02...group-warns-no/

 

Illinois Senate Democrats advanced legislation late Wednesday to restrict semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, pressing forward with new gun control measures in the waning days of the session over the objections of firearms groups.

I'm not a big fan of "Godwin's Law." It serves to separate the evils of the Nazi regime as some other-wordly horror, something un-human.

I'm a big fan of Godwin's law, and here's a great example of why. The normal use of nazi references are as a trump card to establish that whatever your political opponent is proposing is truly the greatest evil of all time. But the real counter is...just because the nazis did something doesn't mean it's the greatest evil of all time.

 

This is a perfect case. How many societies have disarmed themselves, by choice, over time? How many societies in this modern age have vastly fewer guns than us? And how many of them have wound up committing great evil on that scale? The great evils we see today may even be happening in the more well armed states (the civil wars in the middle east, the slaughter in the balkans, the fighting in africa).

 

One case where the Nazis did something doesn't mean that doing that single thing will suddenly start causing your population to kill the jews. Taking away the guns from a population doesn't mean the population has no method for redress against its leadership.

bookmark these posts so that when you stop being a libertarian in a few years you can look back and laugh.

Duke's post are very radical however I still agree with his main point. Federal government should not have too much control or regulation in general. This is just one issue but it applies to everything.

So duke's post was bad without having to invoke "Godwin's Law" because his argument was crap and didn't flow logically, not because he specifically brought up Nazis.

 

Overuse of "Godwin's Law" can serve to shutdown any legitimate discussions of or comparisons to the Nazis, their methods, their society and their ideology. The Nazis shouldn't be treated as some sort of unique, incomparable thing.

Duke's post are very radical however I still agree with his main point. Federal government should not have too much control or regulation in general. This is just one issue but it applies to everything.

Advocating for a limited government is different than saying the only reason we haven't been trampled under the boot of tyranny is because of guns, or bizarrely arguing that Japan's domestic gun control laws had anything to do with their East Asian and Pacific conquests.

Advocating for a limited government is different than saying the only reason we haven't been trampled under the boot of tyranny is because of guns, or bizarrely arguing that Japan's domestic gun control laws had anything to do with their East Asian and Pacific conquests.

I agree. That's why I said some of them are radical. However, in many of the post he refers to the primary reason is to keep the federal government from taking too much control of everything. That's he calls many posters "government lovers" or says many poster equate government with God.

I agree. That's why I said some of them are radical. However, in many of the post he refers to the primary reason is to keep the federal government from taking too much control of everything. That's he calls many posters "government lovers" or says many poster equate government with God.

 

But we are happy for the government to ban things like murder. The pro gun control argument is saying that we are minimizing murders in a more or less non invasive manner by restricting the sale and manufacture of guns.

 

I agree. That's why I said some of them are radical. However, in many of the post he refers to the primary reason is to keep the federal government from taking too much control of everything. That's he calls many posters "government lovers" or says many poster equate government with God.

 

One remarkable thing pt...I think almost everyone here would agree with your sentiment in this post:

 

Duke's post are very radical however I still agree with his main point. Federal government should not have too much control or regulation in general. This is just one issue but it applies to everything.

I certainly would also...and I'd be one of the ones called government-lovers by Duke. There's a lot of places, particularly at the state and local levels, where things could be improved by reducing government interference. Take some time and go through the number of licenses that municipalities have for different types of businesses and you've got great examples.

 

My standard tends to be...I want a good reason before I demand government action. Its a cost-benefit calculation in my view. Just to take this case...when the cost of having people armed with assault style rifles is 20 dead kids...and I can't fathom a single benefit other than some vague "You're ready if the US Army comes after you!"...I lean quite strongly towards a strong regulation.