The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law intended to protect domestic violence victims

[wired]

A few weeks ago, I ran into a video that translated Hitler's bigger speeches into english and used A.I. to recreate his actual voice, and your absolutely right, he was an amazing speaker, much like Obummer, it gives you a really good idea just how the Nazi's were able to seize such control over what would have been a very intelligent group of people!

They are also working on translations of Stalin into english using his actual voice, should be a very eye opening experience!

As much as I've studied Russian History, been to Russia several times, lived there , married to one for 26 years etc , my Russian blows dog. I'd love to see that.

 

[Spitpatch]

Just one . The DAZ was pretty much the paper of record during the Nazi regime . If Hitler made a speech it was in the DAZ . There was no 1938 gun control speech by Hitler.

....ya coulda been a contender with that '70's info.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Regarding the Hitler thing, okay, so where exactly, did the misattributed quote come from? What English language publication? Was it related to Germany at all, or was it related to something else? (Say, the 1968 GCA?)

We now have your ststement of the 1970s, would that be a good place to start?

Can we get back on topic?



As for the SCOTUS decision... again (how many times? )..

All the 2A decisions beginning with Miller requires that NFA 1934, GCA 1968, FOPA 1986's Hughes Amendment all be considered "Constitutional"; and thus the 2A as of the 20th Century after 1934, and currently in the early 21st Century, is not an Absolute Right, nor is it unlimited. (Even though prior to the 1934 NFA, it literally was an absolute right)

 

[wired]

....ya coulda been a contender with that '70's

Regarding the Hitler thing, okay, so where exactly, did the misattributed quote come from? What English language publication? Was it related to Germany at all, or was it related to something else? (Say, the 1968 GCA?)

We now have your ststement of the 1970s, would that be a good place to start?

Can we get back on topic?



As for the SCOTUS decision... again (how many times? )..

All the 2A decisions beginning with Miller requires that NFA 1934, GCA 1968, FOPA 1986's Hughes Amendment all be considered "Constitutional"; and thus the 2A as of the 20th Century after 1934, and currently in the early 21st Century, is not an Absolute Right, nor is it unlimited. (Even though prior to the 1934 NFA, it literally was an absolute right)

Well it wasn't. . The courts largely considered the 2nd amendment to relate to the militia until recently. I know we all like to gloss over that and forget that first declaratory sentence of the 2nd amendment.

The Earps were celebrated for disarming the Cowboys. Imagine if that happened now. The Dick Act neutered state militias in favor of the National Guard under the US Army and the Courts almost always sided in favor of the Feds until around 1968 .

 

[CamoDeafie]

Well it wasn't. . The courts largely considered the 2nd amendment to relate to the militia until recently. I know we all like to gloss over that and forget that first declaratory sentence of the 2nd amendment.

Can you provide specific court cases saying so for 2A until NFA? I'm sure we'd all like to know. I'm also sure the Justices and the lawyers and would like to know too, since having Court cases saying that 2A is largely restricted to militias would have been a slam dunk against Heller, and Bruen regarding "individual Rights vs collective Rights"/ "individuals= people" vs "militia=people"

As far as I can tell, there was the Militia Act of 1792 that literally says every able bodied men 18-45 are eligible members of the militias, and that the men are to be able to furnish/acquire guns and equipment fitting the standards laid out in the Act... IE, the men were responsible for acquiring guns that satisfied the needs of the militia...

 

[wired]

Can you provide specific court cases saying so for 2A until NFA? I'm sure we'd all like to know. I'm also sure the Justices and the lawyers and would like to know too, since having Court cases saying that 2A is largely restricted to militias would have been a slam dunk against Heller, and Bruen regarding "individual Rights vs collective Rights"/ "individuals= people" vs "militia=people"

As far as I can tell, there was the Militia Act of 1792 that literally says every able bodied men 18-45 are eligible members of the militias, and that the men are to be able to furnish/acquire guns and equipment fitting the standards laid out in the Act... IE, the men were responsible for acquiring guns that satisfied the needs of the militia...

To the Courts the 2nd amendment was largely a militia authorization for the states as legitimized in presser v Illinois until the McDonald ruling overturned it.

Militia meant Militia ie well regulated. The founders meant what they said.

 

[CamoDeafie]

. The founders meant what they said.

Yes.indeedy. they did not intend for "The People" to be limited to those men eligible for militia service.

IF they had, 2A would have unquestionably stated "The Right of the Militia (military) members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

 

[wired]

A few weeks ago, I ran into a video that translated Hitler's bigger speeches into english and used A.I. to recreate his actual voice, and your absolutely right, he was an amazing speaker, much like Obummer, it gives you a really good idea just how the Nazi's were able to seize such control over what would have been a very intelligent group of people!

They are also working on translations of Stalin into english using his actual voice, should be a very eye opening experience!

Obummer wasn't even in the same league. That mick O'bama did a few things that used to drive me crazy but put his presentation puts him there with his mentor though. Presidents used to do a speech with a few bigwigs behind them. Obama put normal people behind him. Lots of them. THE PEOPLE ARE BEHIND HIM !!! . Total subliminal mind F'ery. They all do it now.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

I work in mental health and I know how little it takes to be considered a danger to others. In short, someone makes a BS accusation and your rights are gone. No verification, no conviction, just an accusation.

I have seen what people get red flagged for. Often, it's lies for custody or spousal support. Probably 60% of the ones I have seen end up being done by a party who is having an affair and wants to hurt the person they were cheating on. One of them was almost legit. But the guy should have been charged with multiple felonies and in jail. But Oregon wanted to red flag him rather than deal with the fact he kidnapped someone. The rest were nosy neighbors or revenge.

Having seen what passes for dv complaints, be concerned.

 

[bradsteen]

The Dick Act neutered state militias in favor of the National Guard under the US Army and the Courts almost always sided in favor of the Feds until around 1968 .

Well, it's not often that they out themselves in the title of a bill, but this time they sure did... It was legislation enacted by a bunch of dicks.

 

[Spitpatch]

Just one . The DAZ was pretty much the paper of record during the Nazi regime . If Hitler made a speech it was in the DAZ . There was no 1938 gun control speech by Hitler.

Your exhaustive research we hope will supply the origin (in the '70's as you presented) of this statement.

That exhaustive research would be well served to avoid leaps of unfounded information such as your absolute conclusion that "If Hitler made a speech..."

What is your concrete evidence that this quote (if coming from Hitler) had to be a "speech" ?. Your research is severely limited if that wild assumption is considered fact. I am truly interested in figuring this out, and would encourage your efforts to be not so concentrated on ONE form of expression.

We also may hope that you are not of the belief that everything Hitler said was recorded in print when he said it, yet all your stipulations ride on this wild assumption as well.

Statement to subordinates (recorded in minutes of a meeting)?

Private statement to an associate (recorded in a diary of that associate)?

I could go on, but these are distinct possibilities, not to be discounted and certainly would not show in the DAZ (or anywhere else).

The group of historians that would not conclude definitively have considered these possibilities. Your energetic research deserves the benefit of their guidance.

"This was presented in the 1970's as a speech made by Adolf Hitler, and every single thing he said was recorded in the moment in print." may not be your words, but repeatedly has been your steadfast position.

With absolutely NO evidence.

 

[wired]

Your exhaustive research we hope will supply the origin (in the '70's as you presented) of this statement.

That exhaustive research would be well served to avoid leaps of unfounded information such as your absolute conclusion that "If Hitler made a speech..."

What is your concrete evidence that this quote (if coming from Hitler) had to be a "speech" ?. Your research is severely limited if that wild assumption is considered fact. I am truly interested in figuring this out, and would encourage your efforts to be not so concentrated on ONE form of expression.

We also may hope that you are not of the belief that everything Hitler said was recorded in print when he said it, yet all your stipulations ride on this wild assumption as well.

Statement to subordinates (recorded in minutes of a meeting)?

Private statement to an associate (recorded in a diary of that associate)?

I could go on, but these are distinct possibilities, not to be discounted and certainly would not show in the DAZ (or anywhere else).

The group of historians that would not conclude definitively have considered these possibilities. Your energetic research deserves the benefit of their guidance.

"This was presented in the 1970's as a speech made by Adolf Hitler, and every single thing he said was recorded in the moment in print." may not be your words, but repeatedly has been your steadfast position.

With absolutely NO evidence.

Just show one piece of evidence that hitler ever said anything like that. The apocryphal phrase has been kicking around for around 50 years and at one time it was accompanied by an attribution to a non existent German newspaper but that stopped around the time the internet kicked in .

 

[3MTA3]

Anything that sounds so good that you want it to be true needs extra scrutiny.

 

[Spitpatch]

Just show one piece of evidence that hitler ever said anything like that. The apocryphal phrase has been kicking around for around 50 years and at one time it was accompanied by an attribution to a non existent German newspaper but that stopped around the time the internet kicked in .

You ARE steadfast in your assumptions. I will grant you that. It is some form of integrity somewhere I am sure.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Your exhaustive research we hope will supply the origin (in the '70's as you presented) of this statement.

That exhaustive research would be well served to avoid leaps of unfounded information such as your absolute conclusion that "If Hitler made a speech..."

What is your concrete evidence that this quote (if coming from Hitler) had to be a "speech" ?. Your research is severely limited if that wild assumption is considered fact. I am truly interested in figuring this out, and would encourage your efforts to be not so concentrated on ONE form of expression.

We also may hope that you are not of the belief that everything Hitler said was recorded in print when he said it, yet all your stipulations ride on this wild assumption as well.

Statement to subordinates (recorded in minutes of a meeting)?

Private statement to an associate (recorded in a diary of that associate)?

I could go on, but these are distinct possibilities, not to be discounted and certainly would not show in the DAZ (or anywhere else).

The group of historians that would not conclude definitively have considered these possibilities. Your energetic research deserves the benefit of their guidance.

"This was presented in the 1970's as a speech made by Adolf Hitler, and every single thing he said was recorded in the moment in print." may not be your words, but repeatedly has been your steadfast position.

With absolutely NO evidence.

This article covers most of the highlights of this "quote", but a more curious question to me is why is this such an important point for you that this is an actual thing Hitler said, despite absolutely nothing backing up it's supposed origin and all the things that surround it pointing to it not being real?
Not that I haven't picked some odd Hills To Die On myself, but as Hills go, this is the Grand Canyon!

The Hitler gun control lie

Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong

www.salon.com

 

[Xaevian]

"You miss 100 percent of the shots that you don't take"

-Lee H Oswald

 

[Spitpatch]

This article covers most of the highlights of this "quote", but a more curious question to me is why is this such an important point for you that this is an actual thing Hitler said, despite absolutely nothing backing up it's supposed origin and all the things that surround it pointing to it not being real?
Not that I haven't picked some odd Hills To Die On myself, but as Hills go, this is the Grand Canyon!

The Hitler gun control lie

Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong

www.salon.com

I would refer you to my encapsulated statement regarding this whole matter. I am not the least bit interested in either conclusion unto itself.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I would refer you to my encapsulated statement regarding this whole matter. I am not the least bit interested in either conclusion unto itself.

If I'm reading it right, you don't care if the quote is true, only that the process for proving or disproving it's veracity is applied equally to "both sides"?

 

[Spitpatch]

If I'm reading it right, you don't care if the quote is true, only that the process for proving or disproving it's veracity is applied equally to "both sides"?

My position is very clear and in quotations.

(Utilizing the "tidbits" that we've been thrown so far: 1970's and nonexistent German newspaper. No response when asked for substantiation of either but for the sake of argument, I'll run with it. )

I'd like nothing better than to see:

"In a September issue of American Rifleman, 1972, Homer Simpson of Springfield,Oregon wrote describing his wartime "find" of a German newspaper with this statement by Hitler. It was later discovered that Mr. Simpson never served, and his presentation was fraudulent "

How hard would THAT be to find?

 

[wired]

My position is very clear and in quotations.

(Utilizing the "tidbits" that we've been thrown so far: 1970's and nonexistent German newspaper. No response when asked for substantiation of either but for the sake of argument, I'll run with it. )

I'd like nothing better than to see:

"In a September issue of American Rifleman, 1972, Homer Simpson of Springfield,Oregon wrote describing his wartime "find" of a German newspaper with this statement by Hitler. It was later discovered that Mr. Simpson never served, and his presentation was fraudulent "

How hard would THAT be to find?

Why? You're looking for a Hitler quote not a misattributed quote from a banner in a 1977 Cincinnati gun show. Eyes on the prize homey.