Come on. That stuff about Hitler isn't "fact". The Nazi party controlled the populace through clever propaganda and terrorism. In the end they had enormous support, they had no fear of a gun owning populace, that's a laugh! lol!
The Nazi party used those things as well, and yes they did have enormous support from their cowtowed populace, and despite the party itself having never enacted the actual laws that banned guns in Germany ( according to that linked article ), Hitler none-the-less knew that to MAINTAIN power, a de-armed regular
citizenry was ONE of the necessities for meeting that goal.
From the very same linked article:
--- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.
, Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)
GunCite does not have the German version, but Hitler continues, "Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order."
I think it's noteable that he said "troops" and not "people".
Saddam Hussain didn't care about individuals with guns either. You're confusing powerful tribal chiefs who have functioning, heavily armed militias under them with scared individuals in the US who own their own pistols. Your examples are crazy. In fact, most totalitarian regimes make a point of specifically training all able bodied men and boys in warfare and requiring them to possess and be proficient with high powered military type firearms, so that blows your theory out of the water.
I haven't confused anything. My point with Saddam Hussain, and Hitler, is to illustrate the psychology of would-be political oppressors and how ruling an armed populace versus ruling a disarmed populace affects their decision making. With Saddam, what I was trying to say was that groups were able to remain independent of his regime because
they were armed. The quote of Hitler above more clearly illustrates what I was trying to convey.
I did say that Hitler would allow those loyal to his party to carry weapons, I should have said that that includes those that he forcefully indoctrinated into his party as well, but that is what I originally meant.
Pick a totalitarian regime and you'll find that's what happened. In Tito's Yugoslavia they made a good point of it! Everyone had to join the army in the USSR... etc.
You don't have guns to defend yourself against the government, unless you're a terrorist or a moron. But you could have them to support your government if that's what kind of country you live in. ;)
Then again you could live in a place like Somalia where your government has been imposed on you from outside, or the Sudan were the government is out to exterminate certain groups. But even there individuals stand no chance what so ever unless they're part of a rebel army, and even then your pistol wont protect you against the rockets from a Mil-Mi 24 D gunship helicopter.
Like I said, a fighting chance; a pistol is better than nothing. You seem to be argueing that since only a handful of U.S. citizens legally own handguns, then nobody should own them. I am argueing that EVERYBODY ( that hasn't been convicted of criminal violence ) should have the right to own a gun, IF they so choose. If you
don't wish to own a gun, that is your
choice. Peaceful and honest citizens should not have to give up any of their rights just because others choose not to exercise them.
None of your rebuttals address that owning a personal weapon is a fundamental right in a society based on the principles of Individual Liberty; and while, unfortunately, U.S. society still has a ways to go to achieve a truly Liberty-based society, I am going to oppose anything that would cause it to regress from that goal.
I agree with Subcultured that the best means of changing the government is through a peaceful, orderly process; but history shows that doesn't always happen.
There seems to be a lot of faith and dependence on the U.S. Central Government for our safety and protection, concluding that individual weapon ownership is obsolete because we have the Fed to protect us. What happens if that government collapses? It's a very real possibility. Reports are that our government is completely broke and borrows all it's money from China and other foreign entities. A report done by the Reagan Administration in the early '80s found that 100% of the Federal Income Tax went to pay the INTEREST on the Federal Debt. All domestic public debts are being paid for by having the Federal Reserve create money out of thin air ( either through printing up more money, or entering the money into a computer; stroke of a pen ). Bush has spent us into record deficits. The Democrat solution to that problem is to tax the citeznry more and more, as well as induce artificial pay increases.
This is not based on fear, but a rational account of the possibilities. Our credit system ( we don't deal in money any more, those dollar bills are nothing more than credit with the Federal Reserve Bank - like store credit only it can be spent anywhere and it's purchasing power goes up and down with however much of the "money" supply the Fed destroys or creates ) could easily collapse, it most likely won't, but that's not stopping me, nor several other investors, from moving some of my funds into precious metals - gold and silver, the real money.
A government collapse will most likely not happen within our lifetimes, but it very well might, and IF it does, those of us who are armed will be that much more capable of protecting ourselves, our loved ones, and our property.