Germany shootings: Four police officers shot by 'far-right extremist'

[Deleted]

He signed away his right to have those guns, be refusing to cooperate with the authorities. There is no right, granting everyone the right to own guns like in the USA. the privilege is granted by the state under certain conditions, which includes to let some inspectors in, showing that you lawfully handle your guns. He refused that, and therefore his right to have those guns was revoked.

Read the post i quoted again.

[lardaoc]

If the authorities would act within their own laws something like this would never have happened.

In 2006 the highest court in Germany revoked an old law which made the country pay for mistakes the public officials did, nowadays they pay with their own property which made judges not sign their law sentences anymore because they could fuck their own life if they were wrong. A sentence that isn't signed isn't valid.

The same goes for a mission order to confiscate someones weapons, it has to be signed, but if you made a mistake they have the chance to sue you for it. The document has to be signed by a public official of a certain rank. Every public official has to have an ID (Beamtenausweis) to give them the authority over normal people and guess what... not a single public official has that ID, all they have is a duty pass (Dienstausweis). That's not valid either... but well who cares if they don't act within their own laws, I guess.

The guys coming to you trying to control your weapons license, who don't have the authority over you to do so, is like your fucking neighbor coming to you and demand to see your weapons license, hell you could go through a random city and every person you meet could ask for it, they have the same right to see it as those people who come to see it, it's ridiculous, but that's what we have in Germany.

[ranzino]

Yeah they should be allowed to roam free.

But you know he did not walk his gun to the supermarket and back ?

[Mayhem]

If the authorities would act within their own laws something like this would never have happened.

In 2006 the highest court in Germany revoked an old law which made the country pay for mistakes the public officials did, nowadays they pay with their own property which made judges not sign their law sentences anymore because they could fuck their own life if they were wrong. A sentence that isn't signed isn't valid.

The same goes for a mission order to confiscate someones weapons, it has to be signed, but if you made a mistake they have the chance to sue you for it. The document has to be signed by a public official of a certain rank. Every public official has to have an ID (Beamtenausweis) to give them the authority over normal people and guess what... not a single public official has that ID, all they have is a duty pass (Dienstausweis). That's not valid either... but well who cares if they don't act within their own laws, I guess.

The guys coming to you trying to control your weapons license, who don't have the authority over you to do so, is like your fucking neighbor coming to you and demand to see your weapons license, hell you could go through a random city and every person you meet could ask for it, they have the same right to see it as those people who come to see it, it's ridiculous, but that's what we have in Germany.

You have an example for this? Even if it´s in german.

[lardaoc]

You have an example for this? Even if it´s in german.

Sure. I don't have much time left before I head out for work, so I won't control all of the sources right now, will do so later probably.

"You are not allowed to post any kinds of links, images or videos until you post a few times." ...

w ww. mmnews.de/index.php/politik/19095-staatshaftung-aufgehoben

w ww. spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundesverfassungsgericht-erklaert-wahlrecht-fuer-verfassungswidrig-a-846221.html
(mainstream medien, allerdings nur über eine bestimmte Wahl, will nur nicht irgendwelche alternative Medien ungelesen linken, ist auch viel schwachsinn ohne Quellen im Netz)

w ww. bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2012/07/fs20120725_2bvf000311.html
(Urteil ganz offiziell)

diese letzten 2 links belegen im prinzip, dass diese änderung an der haftung der beamten nie hätte stattfinden dürfen

"Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat neuerlich das Bundeswahlgesetz für verfassungswidrig erklärt. Damit ist festgestellt, dass der derzeit amtierende Bundestag nach einem nichtigen Gesetz gewählt wurde. Aber nicht nur der aktuelle Bundestag ist betroffen, sondern auch alle vorherigen, denn das Gesetz ist im Wesentlichen – zumindest, was das Verhältnis von Direktmandaten, Listensitzen und die ausgleichenden Überhangmandate betrifft – seit 1956 unverändert. Alle Bundestage von 1957 bis 2009 wurden also auf verfassungswidriger Grundlage gewählt."
(Auszug der Antwort auf Nachfrage beim BVG Stand 2009)

I'm sorry for everyone who can't read German but it's way to complicated to translate law texts properly, at least for me...

[Templar 331]

As those shootings in the US prove, some over there are still quite resilient to common sense. But go ahead and tell us how those guys doing mass shootings on a daily basis "were just venting... oh no, oops, he wasn't. My bad."

You mean all that gang violence that makes up the majority of shootings? Or are you referring to the "mass shootings" that only make up a fraction of total gun deaths?

There is no right to vent. I know Americans will literally defend any idiocy in the name of free speech, but we've actually seen every idiocy possible in Europe already. We're pretty tired of it and try to actually make it better. We're doing a pretty dang job, too, I think.

1985 here we come!!

Trust me, the constitution is not the final say in anything.

Technically the Supreme Court is the final say but their sayings are based on the Constitution. So yeah, it is.

Situations are created every day where the constitution actually contradicts itself. How do you allow the 2nd amendment when life is threatened with the gun possessed under the 2nd amendment?

Both individuals have the same right to arms under the 2nd. It isn't a contradiction. You are confusing your "right to life" in Germany with our laws.

The common law always follows the constitution, you don't need a supreme court to know that.

Gay marriage says high.

A democracy is based on compromise.

We aren't a democracy.

And no, it's not nearly as half-baked here. We actually have a modern constitution that was well designed by lawyers with certain historic context in mind and it's logically developed.

"Modern" as in allowing Erdogan to file charges against a German citizen based on penal code dating back to the 1800's?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair

And one thing that we put down in writing is that all force comes from the state. There is no provision for civil defense or whatever the 2nd amendmenters are babbling about. Militias are not allowed here. This is not to diss the US, but to contrast the different historical contexts.

Mein Fuhrer!!

But seriously, I'm pretty authoritarian and I don't see it as a good idea to have all force come from the state. Now I don't support roaming vigilantes like the ones that have been popping up in response to immigrants, but on an individual level people deserve the right to protect themselves with force if necessary.

- - - Updated - - -

Theres more to that:

Why didn't they try to take his car? Why go after his guns first? I know the obvious answer will be "because he can kill people with guns!!!" but that doesn't happen that often in Germany so why the guns first? Can they even take his car?

[cFortyfive]

Why didn't they try to take his car?

not sure why I am even bothering but he didn't lose his license to own a car.

I'm sorry for everyone who can't read German but it's way to complicated to translate law texts properly, at least for me...

maybe just leave it in the youtube or pi news commentary session you found it in next time around since it lacks any context with this case unless you are going full tinfoil wrap.

[Renyo]

Sure. I don't have much time left before I head out for work, so I won't control all of the sources right now, will do so later probably.

"You are not allowed to post any kinds of links, images or videos until you post a few times." ...

w ww. mmnews.de/index.php/politik/19095-staatshaftung-aufgehoben

w ww. spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundesverfassungsgericht-erklaert-wahlrecht-fuer-verfassungswidrig-a-846221.html
(mainstream medien, allerdings nur über eine bestimmte Wahl, will nur nicht irgendwelche alternative Medien ungelesen linken, ist auch viel schwachsinn ohne Quellen im Netz)

w ww. bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2012/07/fs20120725_2bvf000311.html
(Urteil ganz offiziell)

diese letzten 2 links belegen im prinzip, dass diese änderung an der haftung der beamten nie hätte stattfinden dürfen

"Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat neuerlich das Bundeswahlgesetz für verfassungswidrig erklärt. Damit ist festgestellt, dass der derzeit amtierende Bundestag nach einem nichtigen Gesetz gewählt wurde. Aber nicht nur der aktuelle Bundestag ist betroffen, sondern auch alle vorherigen, denn das Gesetz ist im Wesentlichen – zumindest, was das Verhältnis von Direktmandaten, Listensitzen und die ausgleichenden Überhangmandate betrifft – seit 1956 unverändert. Alle Bundestage von 1957 bis 2009 wurden also auf verfassungswidriger Grundlage gewählt."
(Auszug der Antwort auf Nachfrage beim BVG Stand 2009)

I'm sorry for everyone who can't read German but it's way to complicated to translate law texts properly, at least for me...

There is still state liability (The "Staatshaftung" which the first article claims does not exist): https://dejure.org/gesetze/GG/34.html. And if there is a decision made by a judge who has the authority to make that decision it is not like 'your neighbour robs you'. There are laws that make this possible.

Concerning the election process: The electoral law more or less became unconstitutional over time because of the growing number of overhang seats and a weird system that could mean that your vote for a party had a negative influence on the seats that the party got. The decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht was from 2009 and the electoral system was changed before the next election in 2013 iirc.

[Templar 331]

not sure why I am even bothering but he didn't lose his license to own a car.

Stop paying taxes on a car, the government doesn't care. Tell the government to screw off and you're forming your own country, they come for your guns. Am I getting this right?

Did they not try to get this man mental help? I hear that's a big thing in Europe. You know, like they do in the prison systems over there.

[josykay]

Stop paying taxes on a car, the government doesn't care. Tell the government to screw off and you're forming your own country, they come for your guns. Am I getting this right?

Did they not try to get this man mental help? I hear that's a big thing in Europe. You know, like they do in the prison systems over there.

That's not true. If you don't pay taxes for your car, your car is "entstempelt", which means it is now illegal to use it. The possession of a car however is not bound to any license of physical, and mental capablity (Although you might not allowed to drive it).

They didn't come for his guns, because he declared himself independent of Germany, they seized them, after he failed, to meet the conditions, required, to have guns in Germany.

[Templar 331]

That's not true. If you don't pay taxes for your car, your car is "entstempelt", which means it is now illegal to use it. The possession of a car however is not bound to any license of physical, and mental capablity (Although you might not allowed to drive it).

It's pretty much the same here only you can use it just not on public roads.

They didn't come for his guns, because he declared himself independent of Germany, they seized them, after he failed, to meet the conditions, required, to have guns in Germany.

Which is still weird to me. You can have a car and not legally drive it but you can't have guns unless you get permission from the government every 3 years even though you legally bought them.

[cFortyfive]

Stop paying taxes on a car, the government doesn't care. Tell the government to screw off and you're forming your own country, they come for your guns. Am I getting this right?

Did they not try to get this man mental help? I hear that's a big thing in Europe. You know, like they do in the prison systems over there.

Maybe you should consider making use of those offers in your country. That said you can "tell" the government a lot of things as long as you are keeping the law. I suppose a psychological evaluation might actually happen - not that I think there is a cure for that sort of mental deficiency.

[Slant]

You mean all that gang violence that makes up the majority of shootings? Or are you referring to the "mass shootings" that only make up a fraction of total gun deaths?




1985 here we come!!




Technically the Supreme Court is the final say but their sayings are based on the Constitution. So yeah, it is.



Both individuals have the same right to arms under the 2nd. It isn't a contradiction. You are confusing your "right to life" in Germany with our laws.



Gay marriage says high.



We aren't a democracy.



"Modern" as in allowing Erdogan to file charges against a German citizen based on penal code dating back to the 1800's?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair



Mein Fuhrer!!

But seriously, I'm pretty authoritarian and I don't see it as a good idea to have all force come from the state. Now I don't support roaming vigilantes like the ones that have been popping up in response to immigrants, but on an individual level people deserve the right to protect themselves with force if necessary.

- - - Updated - - -



Why didn't they try to take his car? Why go after his guns first? I know the obvious answer will be "because he can kill people with guns!!!" but that doesn't happen that often in Germany so why the guns first? Can they even take his car?

Too lazy to split up that rather poor post up, so you'll have to make do with me replying to each point as I do.

I was responding to the dude saying we should wait until someone runs amok before we take his guns away. That's just a silly notion based a world where people think they live in the wild west. Do what you like in the US, but please, don't even try to argue with Europe about how to handle shit like gun violence. Literally every statistic on the topic speaks for our way and clearly against your way. You're making a fool of yourself.

1985? I mean, I love it when people like you misquote shit they heard somewhere and then pretend like they are some sort of authority. You probably mean 1984, a book about propaganda and a Government that seeks power for the sake of seeking power. In the context that I've described, where free speech is currently twisted in the US as a tool to work against the insane PC movement, that is literally everything is considered free speech, no matter how offensive or destructive or... simply put, inanely idiotic, that book has absolutely zero relevance.

See, you think you're using your free speech to tell me all those things. And in the US you may get away with it. But I'm from Europe, where critical thinking is regarded highly. And let me tell you, what you wrote in that post is some of the most idiotic bullshit I've read in recent months. I've tried to defend Americans just today, but people like you are really making it difficult to do that with a straight face. That's how stupid that failed attempt at quoting a classic novel was.

Glad you agree that the supreme court has the final say. Their say is based on the constitution. And if you had actually comprehended what I have said, you'd have stopped right there. The constitution contradicts itself. The rights contradict each other. They are in direct conflict with each other at times. That is when the supreme court actually matters. The supreme court doesn't give two shits about the actual case. What they care, the only thing they care about, is the constituition and how to resolve those inherent conflicts that any human right can have with other human rights.

What people like you seem to misunderstand about law is that you think just because it's written down somewhere that means it's fixed and can't be changed. Newsflash: When two laws collide, one will have to budge. This happens more often than you think. Some laws take precedence, others step back. That's how it works. So, when you say "the constitution is the final say in everything", that really just means that you haven't understood the first thing about the constitution. Instead, you're parroting the ideological bullshit they spoonfeed you through the media. The near religious reverence for the constitution, the flag and all things American makes you absolutely unable to actually think about any of them. That is dangerous. This, by the way, would be the time to quote 1984 and tell you to start thinking for yourself. Alas, I fear it may be too late.

You haven't understood my example, but I've phrased it poorly, so I'll give you that. However, I am way too lazy and hate US code way too much to dig in and give you a better example. Needless to say that it doesn't even matter, since this topic is about Germany, not the US. So while I do appreciate the length you go to turn this into a bullshit US gun debate, I'm not in the mood for child games tonight.

Not sure what gay marriage has got to do with what I said, but okay.

And yes, you are a democracy. I know, you guys have trouble speaking actual English, but you do have what is widely considered to be a democracy. Well, anywhere outside the US anyway. We know you think you're actually god's chosen nation and thus everything you do is special and deserves it's own American label, but really.. you're not different from anyone else. But go ahead, pretend you have some sort of special Government system that's so fucking unique you should name a country after it. Oh wait...

And now the cherry, the only reason why I even bothered to deal with the post that should never have been written. I know you guys have a hardon for all things nazi and I'm pretty certain you came hard when you made that quip. However, you've once more displayed the inability to actually think for a second before typing what you did. First, you're being insulting. But given that you're American, I guess you a) didn't realise and/or b) just don't give a fuck. But let's dissect the idiocy. When I said all force comes from the state, that's essentially how a country works. You will find that even in the US self justice is not allowed. Self defense, sure. But not lynching people. You do have a proper justice system, as much as I hate how it actually works. And as such, your country also functions after the fashion that all force must come from the state. Try ridiculing Germany for it, but you're really just fucking yourself up the arse.

That 2nd amendment bullshit? It's not covering you trying to break a law or ignoring your civic duties, like paying taxes.

- - - Updated - - -

If the authorities would act within their own laws something like this would never have happened.

In 2006 the highest court in Germany revoked an old law which made the country pay for mistakes the public officials did, nowadays they pay with their own property which made judges not sign their law sentences anymore because they could fuck their own life if they were wrong. A sentence that isn't signed isn't valid.

This is utter bullshit. Of course judges sign their sentences. What do you think mandatory law liability insurance is there for? Their rulings get overruled by higher courts all the time, that's how often mistakes are made or differences of opinions occur. I don't have the exact number, but trust me, getting a ruling overturned is absolutely common among judges. They don't like it, because it means they have to handle the case again, but it happens all the time.

Jesus Christ, where did you get this bullshit from? Quote me the ruling of the highest court, please. I'll look it up and tell you what it actually says.

[Slant]

Shouldn't Germany be trying to cover this up so they don't offend someone?

Shouldn't you worry about next month?

[Templar 331]

Literally every statistic on the topic speaks for our way and clearly against your way. You're making a fool of yourself.

So Europe's violent crime rate is perpetrated by 50% blacks? So the ethnic makeup, poverty rate, and social mobility are all the same in Europe as the U.S.?

You can quote stats all day long, but as long as the variables are different then the outcome will always be different.

1985? I mean, I love it when people like you misquote shit they heard somewhere and then pretend like they are some sort of authority. You probably mean 1984, a book about propaganda and a Government that seeks power for the sake of seeking power.

Woops. Keep getting it mixed up with my birth year. :P

See, you think you're using your free speech to tell me all those things. And in the US you may get away with it. But I'm from Europe, where critical thinking is regarded highly.

And now you're justifying the silencing of others because you regard yourself "highly." "in the US you may get away with it." Well yeah, that's called freedom. Crazy talk is just that, talk. Some nutter wants to deny the government's existence then fine, let him. He doesn't want to pay his taxes, fine him or garnish his wages.

But when you want to take something from a person who legally bought it, that's stealing. Your articles are not in conflict with each other in regards with gun ownership. I could make the same arguments against alcohol being a danger to my "right to life" because some drunk could get behind the wheel and kill me. We have that happen almost as often as gun deaths here in the U.S.

That's how stupid that failed attempt at quoting a classic novel was.

So you're alright with thought policing? Yes that's about as much of 1984 that I know about but the point stands.

Glad you agree that the supreme court has the final say.

If you reeeeally want to draw straws, they aren't. We could have another Amendment added that would disregard a previous ruling by SCOTUS.

Their say is based on the constitution. And if you had actually comprehended what I have said, you'd have stopped right there. The constitution contradicts itself. The rights contradict each other.

Which rights are you talking about?

They are in direct conflict with each other at times. That is when the supreme court actually matters. The supreme court doesn't give two shits about the actual case. What they care, the only thing they care about, is the constituition and how to resolve those inherent conflicts that any human right can have with other human rights.

You seriously have a misunderstanding about how our court system works.

What people like you seem to misunderstand about law is that you think just because it's written down somewhere that means it's fixed and can't be changed.

Strawmaning eh? I am quite aware of how an Amendment works. We've had several. We've even had one removed.

Newsflash: When two laws collide, one will have to budge. This happens more often than you think. Some laws take precedence, others step back. That's how it works. So, when you say "the constitution is the final say in everything", that really just means that you haven't understood the first thing about the constitution.

You seriously seem to misunderstand how our legal system works. Again, the Constitution is the final say in that the only thing that can override it is an Amendment. Any law passed by Congress on the federal or state level is overridden by it. So when "two laws collide" they are checked against the Constitution and it's Amendments.

Instead, you're parroting the ideological bullshit they spoonfeed you through the media. The near religious reverence for the constitution, the flag and all things American makes you absolutely unable to actually think about any of them. That is dangerous.

Again with more strawmaning. You mistake me for my "redneck" countrymen.

Not sure what gay marriage has got to do with what I said, but okay.

Gay marriage hasn't been legal in all of the U.S. because of "common laws" i.e. state laws. It was only made legal in all states thanks to a SCOTUS ruling recently.

And yes, you are a democracy.

For someone pretending to be an intellectual you sure do have a poor understanding of the definition of democracy. We are a democratically elected Constitution Republic. And even then our representatives aren't elected totally democratically. Look up electoral colleges and voter districts here in the U.S.

You will find that even in the US self justice is not allowed. Self defense, sure. But not lynching people.

If you had even bothered to read my post you'd see where I specifically said I don't agree with vigilante justice. But no, you want to go on a self righteous tirade.


But anyway, I'm done derailing this thread with you.

In the end, you people are so paranoid about guns that you invent this system to stop them from getting into the wrong hands. Guess what, it failed. A man died. A crazy man got a hold of weapons and he murdered someone with them. He followed all the steps you put forward and he still killed someone. Your system is useless. I hate to use this phrase but "it's not the gun that kills people, it's the one pulling the trigger." It's mentality. The reason you people have such low gun deaths isn't because of your laws, it's because you are afraid of guns. You look at us in the U.S. and think "I really don't want to be like that." And that's not a bad thing. I don't own a gun because I'm afraid of it too. But I don't let that fear affect other people's rights.

[cFortyfive]

Guess what, it failed. A man died. A crazy man got a hold of weapons and he murdered someone with them. He followed all the steps you put forward and he still killed someone. Your system is useless.

Great argument among others I am sure that's the exact same some homeopathy quack would use justifying his bullshit practices.

[blehmeh]

What exactly were the grounds to confiscate the legally obtained weapons? It simply says he wasn't a "reliable" owner, but simply that's not enough legal reason to justify a confiscation.

OP really needs to understand law before he starts bitchin, and also understand the importance of gun ownership... maybe start looking at WW2 for a couple minutes. Gun confiscation was a major tool of the Nazi's.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...hen-p-halbrook

Here's a good quote from the link: Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

Oh man, they even use the same language. Maybe he knows something you don't, OP?

[lardaoc]

There is still state liability (The "Staatshaftung" which the first article claims does not exist): [removed link because I can't post it... -.-]. And if there is a decision made by a judge who has the authority to make that decision it is not like 'your neighbour robs you'. There are laws that make this possible.

Concerning the election process: The electoral law more or less became unconstitutional over time because of the growing number of overhang seats and a weird system that could mean that your vote for a party had a negative influence on the seats that the party got. The decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht was from 2009 and the electoral system was changed before the next election in 2013 iirc.

If a judge who has the authority to make a decision over something doesn't sign his law sentence it's not valid. There isn't anything like signed sentences in Germany. Go to a court near you and take a look at those public sentences they have there and try to find one that is signed, I did and couldn't find any.

Let's go over that GG34 you linked

"Verletzt jemand in Ausübung eines ihm anvertrauten öffentlichen Amtes die ihm einem Dritten gegenüber obliegende Amtspflicht, so trifft die Verantwortlichkeit grundsätzlich den Staat oder die Körperschaft, in deren Dienst er steht. Bei Vorsatz oder grober Fahrlässigkeit bleibt der Rückgriff vorbehalten. Für den Anspruch auf Schadensersatz und für den Rückgriff darf der ordentliche Rechtsweg nicht ausgeschlossen werden."

Amtspflicht: ist die aus einem Amt heraus bestehende Pflicht.

Amtspflichtverletzung: (§839 BGB) ist die vorsätzliche oder fahrlässige Verletzung einer/eines => Beamten einem Dritten gegenüber obliegenden Amtspflicht (z.B. => Aufsichtspflicht des Lehrers über Schulkinder). Sie ist eine unerlaubte => Handlung. Nach §839 BGB hat der beamtenrechliche Beamte grundsätzlich den aus dieser unerlaubten Handlung einem Dritten entstehenden Schaden zu ersetzen.

So if an action that is done is willful or nonnegligent they pay themselves. Which is basically means they are fucked at all times.

My father is a fire fighter, if they are called and they damage a car which is parked in a narrow street, in a no parking zone, blocking their way, they have to pay with their private fortune, before 2006 the country paid for that.

If they damage the car it's an illegal action, if they don't damage the car and can't arrive at their destination and someone who needs help doesn't get any because of it, it's an illegal action...

- - - Updated - - -

This is utter bullshit. Of course judges sign their sentences. What do you think mandatory law liability insurance is there for? Their rulings get overruled by higher courts all the time, that's how often mistakes are made or differences of opinions occur. I don't have the exact number, but trust me, getting a ruling overturned is absolutely common among judges. They don't like it, because it means they have to handle the case again, but it happens all the time.

Jesus Christ, where did you get this bullshit from? Quote me the ruling of the highest court, please. I'll look it up and tell you what it actually says.

I don't get what overruling a sentence has to do with not signing that overruled sentence afterwards, just like the beforehand sentence wasn't signed...

I linked the official sentence the court made... You are going to tell me what it says? That's promising from someone who failed to read my previous message.

[Garnier Fructis]

So correct me if I am wrong here...

1) German citizen legally obtains weapons,
2) German citizen becomes upset with the German government,
3) German government revokes citizens rights because of 2)
4) German government raids home of 1)
5) People get shot.

That is what I take away from the article.

You don't have a fundamental right to bear arms in Germany, unlike the United States. So you can axe number 3 from your list, at which point it basically reduces to somebody refusing to comply with the law and shooting the police. A criminal.

Or do you not respect that other countries can have their own laws and lay out their own rights, and have no obligation to recognize something akin to our 2nd amendment?

[Deleted]

So correct me if I am wrong here...

1) German citizen legally obtains weapons,
2) German citizen becomes upset with the German government,
3) German government revokes citizens rights because of 2)
4) German government raids home of 1)
5) People get shot.

That is what I take away from the article.

Yes and no. He did obtain the weapons llegally. He however did not lose his weapons because he said something bad about the Government. He lost his Weapons because he was deemed unfit to keep them (He kind of proved that point by himself). The Courts asked him several times to turn them in and instead of doing the logical thing of doing that and then fighting the decision in Court, like any sane person. He decided to go into a armed Standoff with Police Forces and shoot at them.