Again....But it's never the guns!

[Something completely different]

Oh, really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_von_Stauffenberg

This guy was raring for it for a few years before he tried to actually fucking kill Hitler. I'm pretty sure it says there that he was, dare I say it, in the army. That's resistance, German and don't try that no true Scotsman thing on such a thing as resistance. It doesn't work any better in that context.

If you read the article you would have noticed that he took part in operation Barbarossa, which was one big single warcrime.

Oh sweet, it was resistance. But for what purpose? For the purpose of reüplacing Hitler with another dictator, because he wouldn`t consider peace negotiations with the west. Your "real scotsman thing" doesn`t apply here, because it is necessary to question his motives to make conclusion about his historical role.

Call that resistance if you want to. I call that opertunism. And I will certainly not put him on the same level as the members of the resistance in the occupied nations aswell as other resistance figures.

What a load of shit! You set up a gauntlet of conditions in an attempt to make your point.

Nope. It is members of this forum who argued that "One needs firearms in privat ownership to defend oneself in case the goverment goes to tyranny.

Wich will never happen. This is just fodder for those morons who see some conspiracy behind every bush. And a stupid way of arguing for lesser gun control.

1. Independent body of a nation's defence. Where is it that the military arm of a nation's defence is not under direct supervision of the controlling political party?

Indeed. The army of a democratic nation is a body which is independent from political parties. I dont know about the US, but I know that it is even forbidden to wear the uniform whilest making a political statement here.

A threat towards a democracy might come from a armed and uniformed group devoted to the cause of a political party, also known as "militia" or "paramilitary organisation" such as the brownshirts, the bolshiviks red guaerd, the Hutu militias or any other armed political group.
But this still isn`t a argument against gun control since the cause for such problems isn`t gun control but political conflict.

2. The point of establishing a dictatorship is to throw out the previous base of power. Eliminating a tyrant's succession by invoking the condition that the former head of state remain in place is fucking stupid. A tyrant/dictator, by definition, can't exist with the previous head of state in place. You have chosen to frame an arguable conclusion by definition that defies the meaning of the concept you were arguing against!!!!

?

So it never happened that a democraticly elected goverment chose to dispand the upcoming elections to rule supreme and totalitarian?

Hamas in Gaza?

I simply pointed out that that never happened with the use of the army, only by an army which did it independently to dispose a goverment.