|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
And he could "use his position" because the people tacitly agreed to what he was doing - i.e. they didn't object.
He used the position of chancellor (and the burning of the Reichstag) to consolidate further power.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
An amendment to the constitution that allowed them to ignore the constitution. The constitution didn't stop them from doing that, which is what I've been saying. The people could have hypothetically stopped them from doing it but they didn't.
Because they amended the constitution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
If you want to believe that Hitler forced himself on the German people, feel free.
I guess it doesn't matter if you want to continue believing something wrong about German history.... Percy writes:
I'll leave it to the people to decide.
... people might conclude that your views are as mistaken as your history.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
We're talking about a case in which the US Supreme Court is making up its own rules contrary to what the constitution says.
I am also sure that there are situations where constitutional provisions were ignored and a leader simply made up his own rules contrary to what the constitution says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
PPercy writes:
If not Hitler, then whom? The German people tacitly, if not downright vociferously, wanted a dictator. It was easy to throw out a constitution that they hated.
I just wanted to make clear that Hitler's rise to power was not tacitly accepted by the German people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
In Canada, few governments get much more than 40% of the popular vote.
As I said in my previous message, Hitler's party only got 44% of the popular vote. Percy writes:
The point of the question was that the German people were perfectly willing to have somebody suspend the constitution. They didn't care who did it as long as somebody did it. With or without a constitution, it's the people who constrain the government.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
A quick Google gives a couple of indications:
Though I've read extensively about WWII, I've never found any indication that Germans hated their constitution.quote: quote: Percy writes:
I'm glad you can tell at a distance what my statements are based on.
... your statement wasn't based on historical knowledge anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
If a bunch of us order pizza and the topping I wanted is voted down, no, I wouldn't say I objected to the resulting pizza.
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? Percy writes:
He didn't have to. He just ignored the parts he didn't like - just like American governments do with the Second Amendment.
Hitler never suspended the German constitution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
That's a different situation. It's a single issue. There was very little objection to the decision, so yes, the Canadian people did and do tacitly agree. They might be more vociferous if he, for example, invaded Russia.
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"? Percy writes:
Whether or not Hitler actually suspended the constitution is irrelevant. My point is that the people were ready to accept it if he did.
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)... Percy writes:
They indicated their willingness by voting for him again and again - knowing full well what his intentions were - until there was no choice but to make him chancellor.
... since the German people never indicated by any vote or plebiscite any willingness to have the constitution suspended.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
Bingo.
Perhaps you really mean to say that it is the People that hold them accountable...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
You're just nitpicking what should have been a fairly obvious point: No constitution stopped Hitler from doing exactly what he wanted to do. You're again either ignoring history or making up your own word definitions. The parallel is equally obvious: The US constitution will have no effect on gun control unless the people want it to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
It was never intended to be of unlimited value.
And yet perhaps your point is of somewhat limited value.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Percy writes:
I'm reminded of the man whose daughter was shot a few months ago. He went on national TV to denounce gun proliferation. Then he added that now he'd probably have to buy a gun because of his newfound notoriety. Polls tell us that most people in the US do want better gun control.... People don't want gun control for themselves. We already have gun control for ourselves - just don't buy a gun. What people want is gun control for the other guys: the criminals, the whackos, the irresponsible idiots who shoot their own children. The problem is the attitude that Americans have toward guns, the attitude that you can use a gun to protect yourself. As long as that attitude prevails, you will never have effective gun control.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Coyote writes:
People who think they need guns are inherently dangerous.
There is no such thing as dangerous weapons, only dangerous people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
A child may be several years to young to drive, or vote, or drink a beer, but if you get him a lethal weapon for Christmas he'll suddenly become Responsible.
Dragnet: A Gun for Christmas. Remember when TV cops didn't shoot somebody in every episode?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024