The Greatest Party of 1969

According to the comprehensive research by JPFO, all of America’s present gun-control laws have Nazi origins, evidenced by the group’s shocking accusation that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was plagiarized almost word for word from Nazi legislation. The German Weapons Law, which existed before the Nazis came to power in 1933, was amended on March 18, 1938, by the Nazi government. The JPFO’s claim is based in part by the fact that the 1968 law introduces the “sporting purpose” test to distinguish different types of weapons, similar to the “sporting purpose” test that existed in the German law in question. Sen. Thomas Joseph Dodd (father to Sen. Chris Dodd) was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials (1945-46) and had reviewed copies of the Nazi 1938 firearms law as the 1968 Gun Control Act legislation was being drafted. Read more at www.wnd.com...

Gun Laws date back to German Weapons Law in 1933

reply to post by Solasis


No. This is your responsibility. The science of observation. The dates posted:

One date is bigger than the other, So one number is bigger than the other.

And of course, these amendments equal liberty... right?

See? See?

Originally posted by streetfightingman
reply to post by Solasis

 

No. This is your responsibility.

completely false. You are making the claim. It is not up to us to put the pieces together. You need to synthesize all of the facts in order to make us reach your conclusion. Looking at a bunch of random links is more likely than not just a huge waste of time for us. This is a very basic fact of argumentation, and unless you bother to do it, your thread is not going to get any of the attention that you think it deserves.

The science of observation. The dates posted:

The fragmented sentence. The unrelated allegation. The incoherent troll.

reply to post by Solasis


You can't add together that certain tax and control acts are spreads to mitigate the shock
to the American public in relation to their fight for their freedoms?

If you can't figure that out yourself, then I'm sorry but you need some real help.

reply to post by streetfightingman


See, I can't recall you saying anything about taxes anywhere. Maybe one of your links did, but again, I didn't follow any of them because you gave me no reason to.

And anyway, no, I can't. Tax acts are overwhelmingly to raise revenue for the government. Control acts are at least ostensibly enacted in order to protect the people. Whether they work or not, I do believe that the majority of control acts which the US government at least intends to fulfill that end. Whether their strings are being pulled by people who use them to eliminate liberty, I can't say. Whether the acts are even actually good ideas, i also can't say.

Enh. I don't know why I'm still trying. You're obviously not receptive to hearing the advice of every single person who has replied, all of whom have said you're incomprehensible. Go ahead and say Mick Jagger is coming for our guns or whatever all you like.

reply to post by Solasis


That's why most people who actually follow this thread with their eyes wouldn't
make such brash accusations like a numpty.

reply to post by streetfightingman


I am the only person following this thread who made even the slightest attempt to actually engage what you were saying. So yeah, I guess I am a numpty.

reply to post by Solasis


Well this is why I'm unbelievably bewildered.

reply to post by streetfightingman


Use your critical thinking skills and consider my advice. Maybe your bewilderment will fade away.

reply to post by Solasis


Could you re-iterate that crucial advice again? And give me reasons as to why you're offering it?

reply to post by streetfightingman


Primary advice: Explain what your "thesis" is, and what the connections between your bits of evidence are.

Reason: Most people don't have the time, patience, or even simply the care to assemble a bunch of seemingly random links and statements in order to reach a conclusion that they are told is going to be obvious. In order for people to consider it worth their while to pay attention to what you're saying, you have to give them a starting point that they can begin evaluating from.

This is why essays aren't just lists of evidence; they are descriptions of both that evidence and of what that evidence is supposed to mean.

Secondary Reason: Because for some reason I think that you do intend to be coherent, and are falling short because you don't know these things.

reply to post by Solasis


Then tell me exactly where I need improvement and why it's important

reply to post by streetfightingman


I've done that several times. And this one is in fact your responsibility.

I've done all that I can to help you.

reply to post by Solasis


No you haven't. You haven't done it once.

I've compiled all of the "official" information available to anybody at this current point in time.

Originally posted by streetfightingman
Holy crap. I've never been so insulted in my entire life.

Really? I guess you haven't been here long enough yet. Stick around a while.

This might be relevant to the thread. I'm not sure. Meredith Hunter was stabbed to death, not shot. Though he did pull a gun himself. Subsequently, the Hells Angel that stabbed him was acquitted at trial. The jury found he acted in self defense. Here is the stabbing caught on tape:

** Closed - pending staff review **