I thought Conservatives just LOVED the Constitution?

why is it irrelevant? a claim was made that "no one will be forced to listen to anything"....

care to extrapolate?

The topic centered on the listening public and you switched it to station personnel. Even if you're right (and believe me, you're not) the station personnel are being paid so they don't have the choice to switch off opinions they don't agree with.

Zap's comment:

"Really? The "Fairness Doctrine" forces views on the public?

Because last time I checked no one or nothing made you WATCH or LISTEN to anything on any channel...but I might be mistaken.

The Fairness Doctrine allowed for BOTH sides of an argument to be heard.

NOWHERE did it force anyone to listen to anything they didn't want to...the "off" button on your TV and radio always worked, even while the "Fairness Doctrine" was law."
 
The topic centered on the listening public and you switched it to station personnel. Even if you're right (and believe me, you're not) the station personnel are being paid so they don't have the choice to switch off opinions they don't agree with.

Zap's comment:

"Really? The "Fairness Doctrine" forces views on the public?

Because last time I checked no one or nothing made you WATCH or LISTEN to anything on any channel...but I might be mistaken.

The Fairness Doctrine allowed for BOTH sides of an argument to be heard.

NOWHERE did it force anyone to listen to anything they didn't want to...the "off" button on your TV and radio always worked, even while the "Fairness Doctrine" was law."

no one, means no one...i then later asked if anyone at the station is forced to listen to it and he said....then he later said....well, the producer has to listen to it....

what an brilliant argument you have...if they don't want to listen to it, they can quit jobs and their family can go without....fact is...someone who works in that position and cannot turn the channel will in fact be forced to listen it

he claimed otherwise and that is factually false
 
actually, the truth is, i have repeatedly asked you to explain where the whine is. i did not simply ask for an example, i've asked for about 4 times, and you still can't do it....

this all you're doing....yet rana thinks i'm the one doing this, yet this all you do to my posts and many of those on those right.

you're a waste time of onceler, you're nothing but a dishonest hack

carrying on with your lies and heckling, i'm sure it feels really good to have rana thank you for something she whines that others do

I bolded the whines...what more do you want?

How hard is it for you to discern a whine?
 
IF you really believe our founding fathers would sanction citizens possessing weapons that could take down a commercial airliner, or an armored tank, then THESE are YOUR founding fathers...

wwii1-2.jpg

not to take away from the rubber/glue whinefest makeout festival, but did anybody find the above as hilarious as I did?
 
sorry about that...i shouldn't have asked him to support his claims when i knew he wouldn't and i should have seen where it was leading

:(

My claim; STU fears the government our founders created, and sees it as such a dire threat to our citizens, that you would think Hitler or Mussolini were the creators of that government.
 
Yea, George Washington's doctors should have sent him for an MRI and CAT scan before they began his bloodletting, placing a preparation of dried beetles on his throat and administering calomel (a mercury-based emetic) and tartar rectally. Too bad Medicare wasn't invented yet.

You have a very odd idea of 'living'...it requires a pulse and breathing, something you will leave your brother to others to keep.

So, you are saying because Washington and the other founders didn't have access to MRI machines, that means that society back then didn't have poor/elderly/disabled people to take care of?

Just trying to understand what your point was in the above.
 
PROVE IT...links please

What about the supposed law itself? Well, as described in the FAQ, 1935 "has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration." (Nor, for that matter, does 1936, the year you mention in your question.) Indeed, there was no need for the Nazis to pass a law like that, because the earlier Weimar government had already passed gun registration laws. When I asked Cramer about his reasearch, he said, "The laws adopted by the Weimar Republic intended to disarm Nazis and Communists were sufficiently discretionary that the Nazis managed to use them against their enemies once they were in power." In other words, they didn't need to pass additional laws. The Nazis did pass a weapons law in 1938, but that only added restrictions to the previous law, especially for Jews and other "non-citizens."
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership
 
The most scintillating debate on here over the past 24 hours has been another rehash of 1/3.

Are we really lowering the level of discourse so much?

dude.... the 1/3 thing is FUNNY

you two going back and forth saying.... you lied/ you're a whiner.... 40 times is not. Sorry, them da facts.
 

The 1938 German Weapons Act

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:

* Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]

* The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]

* The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]

* The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]

* Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.[6]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#cite_note-Harcourt.2C_page_21-4
 
Back
Top