Summations Only

Wrong. I never disagreed with your statement about the poll. If you believe that I, did I challenge you to point to any statement of such disagreement. My very first post on the subject was a statement of agreement. When people are asked question about agreeing with proposition X, it is quite clear that they disagree about proposition X. Election results are nowhere near that specific. Opposition or maybe just expressing a favorite other guy. Or maybe they did not like one or more of Hitler's positions, so they expressed opposition to one or more of them. But which position exactly? His position on the constitution? On the Jews? On what exactly? Because they saw his as a demagogue?Romney lost the last election by similar numbers. Based on that alone, what can we conclude people objected to about Romney? Everything?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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

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. Whether or not Hitler actually suspended the constitution is irrelevant. My point is that the people were ready to accept it if he did. 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.

Bingo.

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

How about you all take the Hitler convo to a new thread...at the very LEAST change the subtitle!

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

As long as we are back to guns, there's this story from Georgia:

quote:

---

A Georgia man lost his leg this week after he packed a lawn mower full of explosives and repeatedly shot at it with a rifle until it blew up, according to local media reports.

---

Man shoots lawnmower
There's a video clip at the linked page.

Exactly so. Scalia acknowledges here that most of the gun control measures that currently exist in the states are constitutional, and in fact, DC passed very tight measures requiring registration in response to DC v. Heller. Heller has since appealed and gotten nowhere.By contrast, the majority of state legislatures that have changed their laws have loosen restrictions rather than increasing them. Apparently a segment of the population does not even respect the idea of private owners banning guns on their own property. The link below discusses a story regarding opposition to the Republican Party not allowing gun toting at their convention.Guns at GOP convention petition tops 35K, Trump wants to study 'fine print'

quote:

---

Posted on the website change.org, the petition of unknown origin notes that "though Ohio is an open carry state, which allows for the open carry of guns, the hosting venue -- the Quicken Loans Arena -- strictly forbids the carry of firearms on their premises." That "is a direct affront to the Second Amendment and puts all attendees at risk," said the petition that has more than 34,000 signers.

---

You're just nitpicking what should have been a fairly obvious point: No constitution stopped Hitler from doing exactly what he wanted to do.The parallel is equally obvious: The US constitution will have no effect on gun control unless the people want it to.

Me thinks the american people do want gun control, its just that special intrest groups dont.

Let me play this too.The US constitution will have no affect on slavery unless the people want it to.The US constitution will have no affect on whether Obama or any other president leaves office at the end of his term unless the people want it to.The US constitution has no affect on whether immigrants born this country are US citizens unless the people want it to.But it turns out, that by and large people in this country, including those who disagree with the SC do abide by the law.I suppose there is some sense in which all of those statements are correct. And yet perhaps your point is of somewhat limited value.The US constitution currently allows gun control. The absence of many common sense measures on which the public is largely in agreement is only tenuously related to the constitution even now.

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

It was never intended to be of unlimited value.

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.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.