The Rest Of The Story

[cockerpunk]

this thread is amazing ... exactly as predicted.

thank you.

[BigEvil]

this thread is amazing ... exactly as predicted.

thank you.

You are more then welcome to stay out of it.

[cockerpunk]

The ones that ignored the Russians contributions apparently

the russians were tromped until there winter stopped the germans. not there private gun ownership.

First off I didn't say it was private ownership BUT...it was part of it:

http://jeffersonian.name/g1959/G1259.pdf

Page 32. This is just one instance that I have heard of where the US helped supply weapons to other nations. This was part of civilians who aided England. In all I have heard the number of firearms that CIVILIANS gave and sold came to 120,000.

Then look at all the weapons and other equipment loaned and given by the governemnt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/

According to this article we supplied around 30 countries including RUSSIA:

http://history.state.gov/milestones/...945/lend-lease

lend lease and everything cited here has nothing to do with private gun ownership.

Here is just part of what the US supplied to Russia

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...6315/lend.html

again, not private gun ownership.

Actually private gun ownership played a big part in the war both before US involvement and during.

Prior to the Lend-Lease program (and during its early days) there were "gun drives" across the United States held by the NRA and several other organizations where firearms and ammunition could be donated by private citizens to be given to citizens of the UK, where gun ownership was at a low and many "found weapons" such as farm implements like shovels and pitchforks, as well as spears made from umbrellas, broomsticks, kitchen knives, etc were being kept by private citizens for defense. The programs came to be after requests by Winston Churchill himself (he asked for donations in speeches, letters, news publications, etc) and over 50,000 weapons were sent in 1940 alone. Granted the UK could have done a better job of distributing the weapons; often guns were passed out with very little ammunition, or the wrong caliber all together. These weapons were given to people along with the story that they were "donated by cowboys" or "seized by the government from mobsters", and there is documentation to show that this was done both to play on common British stereotypes of the US found in popular culture, as well as to disguise the fact that gun ownership was much more common in the US from embittered citizens who felt unable to protect themselves as a result of government policies on private gun ownership. These were intended just as much for defense purposes as psychological ones; it was believed that people would feel more safe with a firearm in their home. Following the war, most of these weapons were rounded up and destroyed, and very few made it back to the US as promised.

The of course there was the very controversial "Lend-Lease" program itself, which in '41, after months of debate finally resulted in billions of dollars of supplies and equipment being sent to Allied countries in Europe and Asia, much in the form of firearms and ammunition. Russia and the UK armed citizens unable to serve in the military as militias (my god, really?) and volunteer police forces, and the latter even issued weapons to individuals for home defense. Obviously the Lend-Lease program encompassed a lot more than just guns (warplanes and food were the real focus overall) but there can be no question that weapons for non-soldiers or conscripted soldiers were something sorely lacked until donations and later, loans, came in. There are documented instances from early in the war of Russian conscripts fighting with spears and swords as their primary weapons for lack of firearms, and of Polish soldiers firing single rifles in two- and three-man teams to make use of a high ratio of men to weapons. Civilian anti-invasion preparations in the UK which resulted from the program ended up not being needed (beyond their benefits in post-war reconstruction, aid to the wounded, etc) but were of incredible psychological value to a people living in constant (and legitimate) fear.

Lastly there's the famous FP-45 "Liberator", a small stamped metal single-shot pistol designed to be airdropped with a small amount of ammunition over occupied territories for use by guerrillas and resistance fighters. Of the million or so made, only 30,000 or so were ever distributed by the US (mostly over occupied France, Greece and Monaco, where private gun ownership was also very low), but that's quite a large number weapons all things considered. Another half million were lent to the UK to do with as they saw fit. The logic behind these weapons was that they would be a "gun to get a gun", that is to say that it could be used to kill an enemy soldier and take possession of his superior equipment, then given to another fighter to do the same. There was, much like the donation program, a psychological angle as well - it was thought that occupying forces would be frightened by the sheer number of weapons dropped and the prospect that any person might very well be carrying a small, concealable weapon at any time. They were sneered at by US soldiers and US military leaders alike, and as such their effectiveness is often downplayed by US historians, but their are records of heavy and effective use throughout southern Europe.

It should come as no surprise that in Nazi-occupied territories, gun ownership was verboten (pun absolutely intended) and one of the first actions upon seizing a town or city was to use official records (such as firearm registrations and firearm ownership permits) to round up weapons owned by locals. This was done both to disarm potential resistance fighters and to arm conscripted soldiers. I'll leave aside the firearm laws enacted in Germany between 1920 and 1938; both the political right and political left in the US love to bring these up, and neither seems to ever get it right - in truth they have no bearing on what was done in occupied territory during the war. Could higher rates of private gun ownership have destroyed German forces entirely? Probably not. Could they have halted the Nazi advance? Maybe not, but who's to say; it certainly is safe to assume that it would have slowed them down.



As usual, Cockerpunk, you think you know it all, but in this instance (and in most instances in which history is discussed, it seems) you wouldn't know the facts if they bit you on the ass.


I'd ask what history books you're reading, but you tend to make it seem that you haven't any at all.


By the by, private gun ownership DID stop Hitler - he shot himself to death with his own privately owned pistol.

private gun ownership was actually never forbidden in nazi germany. it was actually encouraged until the end when the nation go desperate for bodies in the army. it is a long standing right wing myth that hitler took the guns, but he didn't. he was actually wildly popular, and had nothing to fear from private gun ownership.

that is just one of the MANY historical issues with this post.

Adimiral Yamamoto himself stated he would not invade the U.S. mainland as there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.

which is also why despite the empire of japan not having much private gun ownership, we decided to drop the bomb instead of invade.

it happens.

private gun ownership helped kick out the British in The revolutionary war and again in 1812. they were also used by the Rough Riders in the Spanish American war and (God forbid) they will be used again if the politicians every forget the other 14 amendments to the Constitution.

this is a long held american fantasy. it is well known that most private gun ownership in these days were pre-mini ball rifles, suitable for hunting, or shotguns, again suitable for hunting. while most battlefield weapons were classic smoothbores. this was because it took up to 5 minutes to reload a pre-mini-ball rifle, because until a civil war era rifle, the bullet had to shoved down the rifling, dragging the whole way. it was a tough process, and even george washington is quoted to have said, never send riflemen into combat without giving them a route to retreat.

this is why it is well known that smoothbore millitary style muskets were needed in mass by the american army, because there private guns were unsuited for combat at the time. rifles and shotguns the american public owned were just not that useful in battle against the redcoats.

sorry my mini's don't have the french ' thingy on them, you get the point.

evil Fox news of course, who interviewed a dozen people local members of the Sioux nation who each had different beliefs and opinions).

I have difficulty understanding why the invoking of the Wounded Knee Massacre (or even just the push for Native American Disarmament) by certain groups is termed "offensive" or "exploitative" when it is a very pointed and poignant example of forced disarmament and the ensuing slaughter of unarmed civilians at the hands of a government sanctioned military group gone wild, yet members of other groups can bring up the Holocaust, Vietnam, genocide in Darfur, Armenia, the Balkans, or or even THE SAME DAMN EVENT in reference to a presidential candidate, a hiring policy at a company, an entirely dissimilar war, or something equally unrelated, and get away with it almost completely unscathed.

good example of a well armed public being utterly dominated by a larger military force. proves my point rather well.

[cockerpunk]

You are more then welcome to stay out of it.

i know, discussion and differing opinions and points of view are unwelcome when it comes to gun threads.

thank you, i plan to stay.

[BTAutoMag]

[cockerpunk]

see this is the funny thing about these kinds of threads. im actually not much of a gun control advocate. i like guns, i own them, i shoot them. of course since i do believe in some gun control, of course to the second amendment fundamentalists i am one of the enemy, but thats exactly my point.

what frustrates me, is the utter insanity used to justify guns in this country. this just basic level lack of critical thinking really does guns, gun ownership, and gun rights in this country a HUGE disservice. it cheapens gun owners, makes us look like idiots, and hurts us politically. its really sad to see it happen, over and over again. and what you guys don't seem to get, is that by being hardliners, you are actually hurting your cause more then helping. by making crazy claims like private gun ownership in the USA is the reason why we don't speak german, or Switzerland is a gun loving utopia, or that private gun ownership prevent tyranny ... it just makes you look crazy. and crazy, is easy to marginalize. and thats exactly what is happening in this country.

[Patron God of Pirates]

by being hardliners, you are actually hurting your cause more then helping.

This statement can effectively be cut and pasted into almost any political discussion nowadays. Try to propose a practical, pragmatic solution to anything and both sides accuse you of being an extremist belonging to the other.

[BigEvil]

i know, discussion and differing opinions and points of view are unwelcome when it comes to gun threads.

thank you, i plan to stay.

Not necessarily. This is an adult topic, something you have proven over and over again you are not ready to handle. Get a job, grow up a little, maybe even kiss a girl or two if you can and then in a few years you can put your big boy undies on and join the conversation.

[BTAutoMag]

back on subject guys before I post the popcorn guy again. be nice

[Army]

5 minutes to ready a muzzleloader? I can fire, take a piss, eat a burger, call my wife, reload and fire well within 5 minutes. Apparently you have little knowledge of muzzle loading arms.

Civilian owned guns have been proven by every honest research group, to lower the rates of violent crime. Even the Center for Disease Control, which is notoriously anti-gun, concluded that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens lower crime rates in all categories.

I am a strong supporter of open carry. While some here have claimed it makes people feel icky and only antagonizes the cops, always fail to realize that many states allow open carry without all that drama. Best example is Arizona, where open AND concealed carry is allowed without a permit. Somehow, the "Cop Vs law-abiding-citizen-going-about-his-lawful-business" encounters and YouTube videos are non-existent there. Surprisingly, the police themselves carry openly, yet you never here someone say about them; "the bad guy is gonna shoot you first and take your gun". I rather think the bad guy really does not want to die, and indeed, leaves alone those who show that they are ready and willing to shoot them.

There is not a single gun law in the USA that will stop a bad guy from doing bad things. On the contrary, my legally carrying a gun has stopped bad guys from doing bad things.

[wetwrks]

I have a question.

of all the violent crimes in the USA that are commited with a firearm, how many are properly registered?

That question is...invalid. Most states do not require firearms to be registered with anyone. Colorado (where I am) does not require a licence or registration of firearms. We do go thru a state and federal background check to buy the firearm but all the checkers are aware of is if it is a long gun or if it is a pistol. No serial number or anything of that nature is sent to them. It is done electronically and can take anywhere from a few minutes to around 10 days based on the number of people in the Q.

[wetwrks]

lend lease and everything cited here has nothing to do with private gun ownership.

I will repeat myself (yet again)....I did NOT say private gun ownership....you read that into what I said. BUT since you wanted that info I posted THIS link which has an article about PRIVATE CITIZENS who donated THEIR PRIVATE FIREARMS to England to help with the war.

http://jeffersonian.name/g1959/G1259.pdf

AGAIN...read starting at PAGE 32. While this article does not give the end numbers, the total firearms given to England FROM PRIVATE CITIZENS came to around 120,000

[debruynda]

Not entirely invalid; Washington DC require strict compliance with registration (even long arms require registration). Chicago also comes to mind. New York is another city. All cities that have historically high crime rates. I feel confidant without knowing the laws off hand that California is probably similar.

If you want to look into these facts, check the FBI website or the Bureau of Justice Statistics, they are you best bet for researching the issue.

[debruynda]

Not necessarily. This is an adult topic, something you have proven over and over again you are not ready to handle. Get a job, grow up a little, maybe even kiss a girl or two if you can and then in a few years you can put your big boy undies on and join the conversation.

Dang Evil...tell us how you really feel...

[Tunaman]

According to Evan Nappen, Switzerland PURPOSELY hides its gun laws. The reason being that if no one knows what they are they cannot circumvent them.