Summations Only

The election after the burning of the Reichstag was a parliamentary election. The German people were voting for party candidates in local districts, not Hitler. When I said, "Hitler did win the vote," I only meant that it came out in his favor, not that he was on any ballot. As I said in my previous message, Hitler's party only got 44% of the popular vote. Despite Hitler's suppression of opposition, more people than not voted against Hitler's party. The German people were not of one voice, but the majority voice was against Hitler. The Nazi party did not win a majority in parliament, but had to form a coalition with another party to achieve their 52%. In answer to your question, "If not Hitler, then whom," if some party other than the Nazi's were able to achieved a majority or form a majority coalition, perhaps the Social Democrats, then they would have chosen the next chancellor from among their own ranks.You were originally trying to make a point about how a constitution is not a constraint on government. Whether or not that view has any general merit, the example you provided of Hitler seizing power in Germany because "hardly anybody objected" has no objective support.--Percy

One thing I should have added is that Hitler is an excellent example of a constitution not being sufficient to restrain a ruthless grab for power. But it would dishonor the memory of all those people whose lives were destroyed or lost by opposing Hitler's rise to and hold of power to say that "hardly anybody objected." Though I've read extensively about WWII, I've never found any indication that Germans hated their constitution. A fractured electorate grew out of the political confusion after WWI and the economic chaos of the imposed reparations, but I can find no sign of political or constituent groups that were anti-constitution. That doesn't mean some didn't exist. In a country as large as Germany there had to be at least some groups that disapproved of the post WWI constitution, perhaps longing for a return of the Kaiser, but they were evidently too inconsequential to achieve mention in any history I've read, and your statement wasn't based on historical knowledge anyway. Though Hitler ruled as dictator after 1933, he kept the constitution in place and used it to provide his dictatorship a veneer of legitimacy.--Percy

Yes, of course, that isn't uncommon in parliamentary forms of government. So with his 40% of the vote, would you say that "hardly anyone objected" to Justin Trudeau's becoming Prime Minister or any of his actions since? Hitler never suspended the German constitution. As I said later, Hitler kept the constitution in place and used it to provide his dictatorship a veneer of legitimacy. A great many people in pre-WWII Germany were very concerned about Hitler's rise to power. If you're just using a turn of phrase to say that not enough people were willing to risk opposition to Hitler's ruthless power grab, fine, but if you're standing by your original "hardly anyone objected" then history plainly says you are wrong. Not on history, certainly, and it would make no sense taking refuge in the baseless nature of your assertions. Even your post facto Googling for support doesn't support your statements that "hardly anyone objected" and "The German people tacitly, if not downright vociferously, wanted a dictator." Not only do those links not support you, the second is only a creditable attempt at history by a high school student, Harshana Senarath, Grade 11. Great Googling by you.I've been focused on your unfounded statements, but your links do remind me that it's very much worth remembering that Hitler's ability to exploit post-WWI economic and political turmoil was another significant factor in his rise to power.You were originally trying to make a point about constitutions not acting as a restraint upon government, and as an example you used Hitler, and as I've said before, I think that's a good example of a head of state flouting a constitution. But when it comes to statements that he was virtually unopposed in his rise to power or that the German people "vociferously" wanted a dictator, these are unequivocally historically false. You might be thinking of what came later, the near adoration of Hitler within Germany after its economic revitalization and early military successes, but even then he was not without detractors.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Minor clarification.

I'm reacting off-topic and will drop it. I was just correcting the misimpression that nearly all Germans enthusiastically embraced Hitler's rise to power. I thought it would be a one-post thing.The Supreme Court already doesn't blindly follow the constitution. When the court was liberal it managed to find a penumbra of rights derived by implication, and when the court was conservative it managed to find a right to absurdly gerrymandered election districts and another right to unencumbered gun ownership.Ringo's recent posts have been too brief for me to get a clear idea of his meaning.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Uh, okay, I hope you enjoyed the pizza. So when Justin Trudeau honored the Canadian arms deal with Saudi Arabia and 48% of polled Canadians called it a bad decision, you feel it would be accurate to characterize that as "hardly anyone objected," and "The Canadian people tacitly, if not downright vociferously, wanted to honor the Saudi Arabian arms deal"? Well, yes, of course, that's what "providing his dictatorship a veneer of legitimacy" plainly implied. I was just responding to where you said, "The German people were perfectly willing to have somebody suspend the constitution," which isn't true since the constitution was never suspended by Hitler (abused, yes - suspended, no), and since the German people never indicated by any vote or plebiscite any willingness to have the constitution suspended.These may seem like minor details to you (and this really belongs in one of the primaries threads), but the important point here is that when maniacs like Hitler or kooks like Trump gain power, it isn't because "hardly anyone objected," but in spite of objections. And now we're back to the topic. In response to a question about certain future plans, a CEO where I once worked said at a company meeting: "It isn't a matter of whether it's legal. We're going to do it. The question is what is the most legal way we can do it." In the same way, constitutional interpretations are invariably viewed malleably. American administrations in general exhibit no special qualities among the world's nations in seeking constitutional interpretations favorable to their policies and goals. The Supreme Court's most recent position on the 2nd amendment may seem like an outlier, but I think not, something you should agree with given your recent statement about how shabbily constitutions are often treated ("Constitutions are suspended every day.").--Percy

I'm making a sensible inference and you're saying, in essence, "But you don't have proof." But any reasonable person would make that inference, and anyway, a quick Google tells me the inference is correct.In the same way, I think anyone looking in from the outside and seeing a US poll about the Supreme Court's decision on gun control would reasonably conclude that "hardly anyone objected" is not a remotely accurate characterization, let alone that the American people were "vociferously" supportive in wanting less encumbered access to guns.I do agree with Ringo that constitutions are less a restraint than one might hope. An obvious interpretation to some is often flawed reasoning to others.--Percy

Wrong, maingly because you're confusing two different arguments. My inference from the poll was eminently reasonable, and as it turns out correct. You're misinterpreting something, though I can't figure out what. I wasn't trying to be cute - I was just stating the obvious. I stated a very reasonable inference, one anyone would make (you don't make clear why you think it unreasonable), then in response to your post did a little Googling and found that it was also a very accurate inference. Who supports what they think are obvious statements with facts? How would I know ahead of time that you were going to question the obvious? My being correct is a much better validation of my argument than it is of yours. You're responding to a running discussion that took several turns, and since you don't quote anything specific I can only guess that you're again confounding different parts of the discussion. Most recently it was Ringo who claimed that, "The German people were perfectly willing to have somebody suspend the constitution," and I who objected that, "The German people never indicated by any vote or plebiscite any willingness to have the constitution suspended." If you're talking about another portion or mixing them up then you'll have to explain.--Percy

First you agreed, then you disagreed. Most recently you seemed to be disagreeing. Then here you make the interpretation that I was drawing an analogy, which is incorrect: I never drew that analogy. I was trying convince Ringo of the illogic of his position. Ringo brushed aside one argument with an absurd analogy to a disagreement about toppings for a pizza, forcing me to find a different way to make the same obvious point, that in groups as large as countries there will always be strong and vocal disagreements about controversial issues, whether it's Hitler, the German constitution, Saudi arms sales, or gun control.Thus, it's obvious that among the 52% in Germany who didn't vote for Hitler that there must have been significant opposition, just as there was among the 48% in Canada who thought honoring the Saudi arms deal a bad idea. That Ringo's statement that "hardly anyone objected" to Hitler's rise to power is wrong is obvious (and even more obviously his claim that, "The German people tacitly, if not downright vociferously, wanted a dictator"), and even for those who want to insist it isn't obvious, it's also wrong when you examine the evidence in detail. This is something that's just definitionally true about controversial issues, else they wouldn't be deemed controversial (of course, controversies disappear from public expression under certain circumstances, such as the Hitler police state that later emerged). Now if Hitler's rise to power wasn't controversial within Germany then you might have an argument, but it was and you don't.Finding odd and unintended interpretations and subjecting messages to minute and detailed analysis is a distraction that takes discussion down ratholes. Why are you doing this? Ringo has a point about constitutions being open to interpretation (I know he didn't say it that way), but one of his supporting examples involving Hitler was incorrect, and as a WWII buff I couldn't let it slip by. He wanted to insist he was right, I tried to convince him he wasn't, you're flaw-hunting through my posts because, well, I guess just because, and now the topic is becoming forgotten.--Percy

Okay, if you say so. I never said they were. I understand the differences between a general election and a poll on a specific issue, but there are also similarities. One *can* legitimately draw an analogy between them. Objecting to an analogy by highlighting differences often indicates one doesn't agree with the point the analogy supports, not that there are any partciularly meaningful problems with the analogy.But whether or not an analogy between a vote and a poll is appropriate, it's irrelevant (and at least two levels away from the topic) because I never attempted such an analogy. What part of "I never drew that analogy" didn't you understand? You sound like a lawyer desperately raising random issues hoping something sticks. As near as I can tell, you understand Ringo's claim that "hardly anyone objected" to Hitler's rise to power (offered in support of his position on the weakness of constitutions as a restraint on government) was wrong (anyone still in doubt can read Adolf Hitler's rise to power), but you don't like my arguments attempting to get Ringo to accept he was wrong. You're into double meta areas.Many important lessons emerged out of WWII (and out of many wars, but the lessons from WWII were particularly clear), so here's another one that connects to this topic: Out of political and economic chaos political parties and politicians with radical views can emerge on top, and one way to encourage chaos is to put as many guns as possible into the hands of people who shouldn't have them. The more violent crime, the more families hit with self-inflicted tragedy, the more suicides, the more fear, it all contributes to political conditions that benefit extreme politics and politicians, just as we're seeing today.Whether it's their intention or not, the ISIS inspired terrorism in Europe will change politics there. Whoever appeals best to the populous will win, and some will propose extreme policies that involve suspensions of civil liberties. That's how it starts. Democracies can be their own worst enemy. As Churchill once said, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."--Percy

I didn't claim it was the same situation. It was a different example making the same point about controversial issues. You have an odd definition of "tacitly agree." So if Trump is elected I guess you'd say that all us EvC'ers vociferously objecting to Trump in the primaries threads tacitly agreed. How does this make any sense? More people than not indicated their unwillingness by voting against him again and again. This is true. Hitler made no secret of his militarism, his hopes for a greater Germany, and his anti-Semitism. On the other hand, no one anticipated it would end in gas chambers, widespread horrific destruction, and millions killed. You're again either ignoring history or making up your own word definitions. That the German people had "no choice" is only true in the sense that much of what Hitler did to gain power circumvented the political process and the will of the people. Naturally it was the will of some people, but more people than not voted against Hitler, and you keep forgetting that.--Percy

It's become timeworn and clich, philosopher Santayana's, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Sometimes it seems it should more accurately say, "Mankind does not learn from the past and is condemned to repeat it." Who among us actually remembers World War II first hand? How many among us know it only from history books? How many among us managed to escape school having learned very little history?I had dinner last night with someone who lived through WWII, recruited in Canada to do secretarial and administrative work in the newly completed Pentagon. We talked about kids and grandkids and great grandkids and recipes and if the early spring weather would continue.WWII never came up, it rarely does, but its lessons are so important that mistakes and misconstruals about it cannot be left to percolate unchallenged. That we're even having this conversation is proof that too many have already forgotten or even never knew this part of our past. We must never forget that period. It's lessons are too important and still very highly relevant today with rampant political and military turmoil growing and spreading.If someone wants to insist on bad examples and word definitions, after a few posts you just give it up and leave them to their fantasies, but not when it comes to lessons as important as those from WWII. Too much is at stake. If Hitler could rise to power in post WWI Germany then Trump could rise to power in post 911/Iraq/ISIS America, and it won't be because everyone tacitly agreed. The overarching lesson of WWII is that, "It can't happen here," is wrongheaded thinking in the most deep and profound sense.But to try once again to nudge this discussion back on topic, Ringo's point about constitutions not being a sufficient constraint upon power is a good one. When he said, "Constitutions are suspended all the time," I took it as hyperbole that constitutions are less a restraint on power than we would hope, and of course they *are* suspended regularly when viewed on a political timescale.As they age some portions of constitutions become anachronistic and would be better honored in the breach than in the practice. The 2nd amendment is indeed anachronistic, let's look at the precise words again:

quote:

---

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

---

There are many anachronisms in the Bill of Rights. Soldiers can only be quartered in homes with consent and in a manner "prescribed by law." Lawsuits on matters exceeding "twenty dollars" (never amended) have the right to trial by jury. Certainly the 2nd amendment has no monopoly on being archaic and antiquated.But the 2nd amendment *does* say what it says, and the Supreme Court did an end run around the opening words of the 2nd amendment in their 2008 ruling. Obviously this needs to change, but despite that the ruling clearly stated that legislative restraints on gun ownership and possession are constitutional. Some excerpts taken from DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER, and I believe this portion was written by Scalia:

quote:

---

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

​

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

​

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military serviceM-16 rifles and the likemay be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

---

As can be seen, this Supreme Court ruling was not the victory for gun rights that the NRA claims. In the next section it explain's why the District's handgun ban went too far and was therefore unconstitutional, but the legislative privilege to regulate who may possess guns and how they may possess them remains. Only the NRA's stranglehold on Congress and on many state legislatures prevents effective gun control from becoming a reality.--Percy

Yes, that's true, but that wasn't what you said, which was this from your Message 4855: Both the constitution and the German people were significant obstacles to Hitler's rise to power, but he was a deft and charismatic politician with a gift for rabble rousing speeches, and he gathered people around him who like himself had no qualms about using violent means to achieve political ends.Later you said this in your Message 4871: Yet more people than not voted against Hitler's local candidates, and those who voted for them would have assumed that victory meant Hitler would become chancellor, not dictator. No party received a majority in parliament, and to receive the chancellorship Hitler was forced to form a coalition government and engage in behind the scene negotiations with Papen and Hindenburg. After the Reichstag fire Hitler used his new emergency powers to arrest all communist parliamentarians and others opposed to his cause, and that's how was passed the Enabling Act that gave him dictatorial powers. Polls tell us that most people in the US do want better gun control, yet the machinations of a national gun organization and their influence over of a major political party seem to be thwarting the will of the people. Money and political power and conniving have overcome the will of the people time and again. Just wanting something is only a first step.--Percy

What the study (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Violent Crime: A Cohort Study | PLOS Medicine) actually said about the youngest age group was this:

quote:

---

With age stratification, there was a significant association between SSRIs and violent crime convictions for individuals aged 15 to 24 y (HR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.19—1.73, p < 0.001, absolute risk = 3.0%).

---

A "very large increase" and a "significant association" are not the same thing. The statistical correlation doesn't translate naturally into some magnitude of increase, I'm not sure myself how to interpret it.--Percy

For me your bullet points didn't add up to debunking the "good guy with gun" meme. It seems like debunking would require showing that guns intended for defensive use in some way increase rather than decrease danger. Maybe I'm missing something?--Percy

While I didn't follow how the Theodoric's bullet points supported his contention, neither do I follow how they support yours. Again, maybe I'm missing something.--Percy