It is no secret that American progressives would love to do away with the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Conservatives, on the other hand, are adamant about protecting our right to bear arms, which they claim serves as a check on government tyranny: An armed citizenry makes it harder for a government to act against its people.
Last week, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson created a firestorm when he used Nazi Germany as an example of a government that was able to act because it had first disarmed its citizens. He told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that: “The likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the [German] people had been armed.”
Carson went on to add: “There’s a reason these dictatorial people take the guns first.”
Although Carson’s comment seems rather mild, the reaction to it was swift and overwhelmingly negative. Amanda Marcotte wrote in Salon:
Apparently, Ben Carson didn’t think blaming the victims of the Oregon shooting was going low enough, so he doubled down, reaching for what may be the most repulsive victim-blaming possible: Arguing that the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened if Jewish victims had offered armed resistance… these comments verge on being a form of Holocaust denialism.
The Anti-Defamation League response stressed that talking about the Holocaust in the context of the gun control debate was offensive:
The argument goes something like this: If Jews and others had had freer access to more guns in the run up to Hitler’s assuming power and had been able to use those guns to fight back against the Third Reich, then there wouldn’t have been a Holocaust, or far fewer would have perished. This historical second-guessing is deeply offensive to Jews, Holocaust survivors and those who valiantly fought against Hitler during World War II.
Meanwhile, “actor” Seth Rogen took the high road with this tightly reasoned argument:
Could the Holocaust have been stopped if German Jews had been armed?
Prisoners at Buchenwald concentration camp
Alternate history speculation tends to be a waste of time because there is no correct answer. This case is no exception.
While Carson does not deserve the opprobrium that was heaped upon him, he was probably too optimistic about what German Jews could have done to resist the Nazis if they had been armed.
According to historian Paul Johnson, European Jews, because of their minority status, developed a tradition of negotiating with their governments to protect their communities. Organizing an armed resistance would probably would not have occurred to them until it was too late. Thus, I think that the Anti-Defamation League is correct in their assessment:
It is mind bending to suggest that personal firearms in the hands of the small number of Germany’s Jews (about 214,000 remaining in Germany in 1938) could have stopped the totalitarian onslaught of Nazi Germany when the armies of Poland, France, Belgium and numerous other countries were over-whelmed by the Third Reich.
But what was lost in the brouhaha over the Holocaust was Carson’s larger point. His real point is that an armed populace is a good thing because it can be used as a check against tyranny. Therefore, Carson would argue, it would be unwise for the US to undo the Second Amendment or implement restrictive gun control policies.
The history of gun control in Germany supports Carson’s argument
Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda
Carson made his case for an armed citizenry in his book, A More Perfect Union where he claims:
German citizens were disarmed by their government in the late 1930s, and by the mid-1940s Hitler’s regime had mercilessly slaughtered six million Jews and numerous others whom they considered inferior… Through a combination of removing guns and disseminating deceitful propaganda, the Nazis were able to carry out their evil intentions with relatively little resistance.
Critics of Carson have been quick to point out that he was partially wrong here. The Nazi government didn’t disarm German citizens. It actually liberalized gun control laws—at least for the majority of its population.
After Germany was defeated in World War I, the victorious allies forced Germany to agree to harsh terms of surrender in the Treaty of Versailles. One of these terms required Germany to disarm, so in compliance with that term, the Weimar government passed a law in 1918 called the “Regulations on Weapons Ownership.”
The law required German citizens to surrender all their firearms and ammunition immediately. Any citizen who was found possessing a firearm could be punished with heavy fines and a sentence of up to five years in prison.
As the Nazi Party began to gain power, they were instrumental in relaxing the gun control laws with the passage of a 1928 law that allowed Germans to once again possess firearms if they first obtained a permit.
When the Nazis came to full power, they passed yet another relaxation of gun control in 1938. They completely deregulated long guns and ammunition—permits were only required for handguns. They also lowered the age when one could apply for a handgun permit from 20 to 18. Finally, the Nazis also extended the duration of the permit from one year to three.
However, the 1938 law also banned Jews from participating in the manufacture or sale of firearms or ammunition. Later that year, the Nazis went further and completely disarmed the Jews with a law that prohibited them from possessing weapons of any sort, including clubs, knives, or guns and ammunition.
The history of gun control in Germany provides a couple of lessons. First, dictatorial regimes do not necessarily disarm their citizens—only those elements of the population that are disfavored by the state.
The second lesson is that disarming a population is, as Ben Carson implied, a way of punishing and subjugating that population. After World War I, the allies wanted to completely humiliate and subjugate Germany, and one of the ways they did this was by ensuring that Germans were not armed.
Similarly, the Nazis ensured that Jews had no weapons to defend themselves. This shows that Nazis knew that allowing German Jews to have weapons would have made implementing the Holocaust at least a little more difficult.
American military policy implies that arming a population works
Osama Bin Laden with Afghan Mujahideen
In the US, the Democratic Party is strongly in favor of gun control. President Obama has gone so far as to express praise for Australia’s gun control law, where all guns, with a strictly controlled exception for rifles and shotguns, were confiscated and banned.
This is interesting because the military policy of the US suggests that arming a group can enable that group to resist or even overthrow its ruling government. The US often arms rebels within certain countries in order to destabilize those nations.
The most famous example of this was the US arming of the Mujahideen in the Afghan-Soviet conflict. The Soviet Army was trained to fight a conventional enemy, but they were unprepared to fight the low-level guerilla warfare waged by the Mujahideen. This conflict demonstrated that arming and training a highly motivated force of civilians could even overcome a super power.
Even the Obama Administration continues to make use of the strategy of arming rebel groups, albeit very ineptly. The Department of Defense admitted to spending $42 million dollars to train only 54 “moderate” Syrian rebels who were supposed to fight ISIS, or more likely, Syrian president Assad. However, only “four or five” of the fighters were actually in the field—a pretty sorry return on investment.
Again, the United State’s use of arming the civilians of other countries to rebel against their government supports Carson’s contention.
Conclusion
Ben Carson probably overestimated what German Jews could have done to resist Hitler, but he is correct in implying that governments are likely to disarm populations that they are bent on subjugating. The corollary is also true: An armed citizenry is more capable of resisting tyranny.
But history shows that merely having handguns is not enough to resist a heavily armed modern state such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. To do that would require a motivated fighting force, a high degree of training and organization, and special equipment, such as the weapons the US provided to the Mujahideen during the Afghan-Soviet war. Anything short of that kind of organization would merely pose a mere nuisance to the firepower possessed by modern states.
Having easy access to firearms comes with a cost—it means there is an increased risk of gun violence. But it also provides a check on government tyranny. Americans would be wise to think twice before allowing the government to limit their right to bear arms.
Read More: Why Did Caitlyn Jenner Get A Bravery Award After Her Role In A Fatal Car Accident?
Came here to post this.
+1
never forget…
Seriously, quit spamming the discussion board with your reposted videos. It’s annoying as shit. We all know most US Politicians are bought by the Zio-lobby.
We’re here to talk gun-control, not watching Mitt Romney touching a wall.
Yeah. You better keep the suction tight on my circumcised cock goy…you don’t want us to shut you down as an anti semite, do you?
Here’s my contribution to the topic at hand. It’s simple really.
By the way, you really need to take a deep breath and chill homie. My point in “spamming” is to try and get everyone to focus on the real issues, not the symptoms, which you all seem to like to obsess over. But please, go on chasing your tail! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7f95868feb702d4debcbe4a6c88765d2db5dfdb1ee571d0a28f790a7f2426ebd.jpg
While I like your quote from Stefan there, there really is no reason to spam the same video over and over in the same article. Once is enough. Most of us that comment here are reasonably smart and open to discussing the merits of different views. They’re not going to be swayed to watch your video simply because you posted it multiple times. If anything, it will dissuade people from “focusing on the real issues.”
Spam is spam, even legitimate spam.
Glad you’ve finally come to your senses and posted something related to the original article. Was that so hard? I’ve seen the quote before, and I happen to agree with it completely.
Gun control IS part of the real issue. Your assertion is that one real issue happens to be “more real” than another real issue. Fact of the matter is totalitarian regimes, gun control and damaging Jewish influences are ALL part of the real issue.
…
https://tobefree.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/orwell1984football.jpg
Panem et circenses
No Jimmy Carter in the video? I think he’s not allowed into Israel he’s said things over the years that makes the Jews nervous.
Your fans are a bunch of animals. Makes us NYers seem tame.
For a few years, the Angels were the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Your team should be the Toronto Blue Jays of the Dominican Republic 🙂
Gun control in any case, usually under the guise of ‘public safety’, has always been a pretext to totalitarian control and eventual democide. Why do you think the ‘right to bear arms’ became an amendment to the US Constitution? Because the Founding Fathers knew the nefarious purpose of disarming law abiding citizens. Did Founding Fathers use ‘freedom of speech’ and peaceful protest to fight British subjugation? Nope.
How many millions of defenseless people were murdered by their own peers or Governments because they weren’t “allowed” to own firearms. Have the lessons of the past and the insightful knowledge of Orwell taught us nothing? The Killing Fields? Tiananmen square? Communist dictatorships? 1776? North Korea? Detroit?
People who complain about ‘safety’ being the key factor, specifically anti-Constitutionalist hoplophobes in the US who don’t understand the significant importance of private firearms ownership, are quick to state that we should ‘ban’ guns or at least the ‘scary’ ones (considering they have no knowledge of firearms). There is zero correlation between firearms and violence. Countries with stricter gun control laws tend to have higher rates of home invasions, rape and assaults (UK, Australia & USA). Odd, isn’t it?
The sooner the moronic left realizes that violence is a function of poverty/population density and not firearms, the better.
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OCt_IijlP_g/hqdefault.jpg
“Gun control in any case, usually under the guise of ‘public safety’, has always been a pretext to totalitarian control and eventual democide”
It’s no coincidence people in the EU are disarmed and unable to defend themselves against treacherous politicians and migrant hordes. I fully expect the EU to turn into a “V for Vendetta” like dictatorship in the near future. At least they will try to establish one.
I’m grateful that we are somewhat insulated to the effects of gun control here in Canada. I personally have 5, each with a unique purpose.
I fear that the electing of anything other than a Conservative government up here would spell the end to firearms ownership. I hope myself or my future generations will not be the subjects to firearms confiscation.
Just report them all stolen the day confiscation laws get passed
I’ll only do that for my AR, which the Gov knows I have (thanks to the restricted-status plastered onto it by hoplophobic Socialists).
As for the other 4 non-restricted, I’ll be hitting up Home Depot for oil and PVC Pipe.
not following you on the oil and pvc
http://www.greatnorthernprepper.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/monovault1.jpg
Had a feeling that’s where you were headed with the PVC statement. Been thinking of doing the same thing.
I highly recommend it.
I’ve considered buying 5 or 6 SKSs with 10,000 rounds and just burying them in the woods near a family property. It wouldn’t be more than 2000$ at most.
I’ve been thinking of making full-blown caches with food, guns/ammo, and survival gear.
I’d definitely be interested in exchanging ideas sometime.
Tried to see if your Disqus account had an email on it, but it’s not finding anything. I’ll open up my account from private so you can see my email. Hit me up anytime man.
I just listed mine on my profile. Cheers!
For whatever reason, I cannot open up your profile. Disqus is saying “page not found.” Just send me an email and I’ll save your email address.
Got it. Now to set my profile back to private so the commies can’t track me. 😉
How likely do you think us Canadians will need the 2nd ammendment up here?
I have been wanting to get some firearms before its too late( not talking about a dictator but even socialist NDP’s elected ) , but but its such a hassle and long process.
Any tips or thoughts?
Hi fellow dissident!
Can you give me the exact coordinates of the place you plan on storing your cache, sir?
I’m not NSA or anything.
To bury them somewhere…
Depends on where you live I suppose. If you plan on buying yourself a plot of land to raise a family away from the ills of Jewish intellectualism, then I highly recommend you stockpile a small arsenal and educate your family on the importance of firearms ownership and usage.
The NDP plan on bringing back the long-gun registry, or at least in Quebec. In both the publicized platforms for the Liberal and NDP agenda, both parties have expressed intent on further restricting firearms, cancelling bill C-42 (Common Sense Firearms Bill) and, in the case of the NDP, banning ARs and potentially handguns.
I highly recommend you get yourself involved in firearms culture in Canada. Pick up a range membership and become a proficient shooter. Heaven forbid we need to put our skill-set to use in the future.
Once this shiite has hit the fan, I’ll let you know 😉
If they do come for them, remember that you can’t effectively resist confiscation alone. On the other hand, your local community can collectively resist. No western government wants to be known as firing the first shot into a hoard of local residents refusing to give up their guns peacefully. Peaceful armed resistance.
They’ll expect this tactic. You’ll need to bury them in a place they’ll never find then and you’ll need to expect them to come back with a warrant to search everything you own if they didn’t come with a warrant the first time.
He’s going to bury it.
but why oil though?
Didn’t Canada ban guns for a decade and then do a recap only to find it was ineffective
I read an article today that blew my mind: refugees, who had been in Germany weeks, maybe months, planning to sue Germany for not fast-tracking their road to getting state goodies.
Im sure a state- appointed lawyer will represent them. More time, money, resources wasted…
Wow…didn’t take them long to get with the entitled-little-bitch program.
Apparently, a German guy on his computer made some tasteless joke about that one refugee child who drowned, so they took away his computer and phones! At least, that’s one incidence of Germany’s fascist-like attitude to opposing opinions! A ton of examples here. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/germany-cracks-down-on-speech-by-citizens-enraged-over-its-immigration-policy.php
Interestingly Switzerland is armed to the teeth.
“The sooner the moronic left realizes that violence is a function of poverty/population density and not firearms, the better.”
Agree totally. Violence is at an all-time low in America. The gun agenda avoids the real issues such as poverty, mental health, and the ridicule and marginalization of masculine values.
The British hardly “subjugated” the American colony. It was actually rather free and prosperous so far as colonial rule goes. The Americans were rich businessmen objecting to taxes. Even the use of “tyranny” is hyperbole, as if Americans were fighting Vlad the Impaler.
The left will never learn, because their claimed motives are lies. It’s about power, feeling morally superior, but mostly, punishing groups that don’t vote dem
“Americans would be wise to think twice before allowing the government to limit their right to bear arms.”
There is a reason why the right to bear arms comes after the right to free speech, and that is because the 2nd Amendment follows the 1st. The first may be the most sacred, but the second helps to secure the first. While leftist vermin assault the right of people to think and speak for themselves, they are also the shrillest advocates for gun bans under the disguise of protecting children (even while they’re the most fanatical supporters for abortion at any time for any reason). They are also the most fervent supporters of policies and cultural decay that GUARANTEES rampant criminality. This is not a coincidence. Guns symbolize resistance, and the leftist hive mind can’t have that,can they? “Gun controls” are people control, nothing more.
Liberty and freedom loving people should take heed of another expert on “gun control” and it’s logical conclusions.
“We don’t allow our people to own guns because they’re dangerous. Well, ideas are more dangerous than guns, so why should we let them have those either?” – Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan with tanks and murderer of 40 million. Leftists and cuckservatives (which is just a distinction without a difference) will defend, justify and rationalize unauthorized spying, invasions of privacy at airports, restrictions of freedom etc, blah, blah, blah under the disguise of providing “security” spout nonsense of “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.” Very well then, what does the State have to fear with an armed populace? Any government that does not trust its citizens to keep and bear arms is automatically unworthy of said people’s trust and deserves to be evicted from power.
“There is a reason why the right to bear arms comes after the right to free speech, and that is because the 2nd Amendment follows the 1st. The first may be the most sacred, but the second helps to secure the first.”
Great observation. Our founding fathers were VERY particular about the wording and order when they wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am sure you are familiar with “The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It’s in the order for a reason as well. First and foremost, you must have the right to live or else all other rights are irrelevant. Second, you must have the right to liberty or else you cannot pursue happiness.
“Any government that does not trust its citizens to keep and bear arms is automatically unworthy of said people’s trust and deserves to be evicted from power.’
Yes. This logic wins.
This way, government works HARD to keep the trust of the people.
Why wouldn’t a historically militaristic society like the Germanic society let their citizens get armed? Of course except undesirables such as Jews.
“People shouldn’t be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.”
Team Proggy hates and fears this guy. Although I don’t fully trust any doctor on gun control issues.
Human nature is basically violent, because thought is violent. If it were not for our destructive weapons, we would have been wiped out a long time ago. And we are going to be wiped out, because others at some point will have the means to wipe us out. And anything that is born out of thought is destructive. You may cover it up with all wonderful and romantic phrases: “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Don’t forget that in the name of “Love thy neighbor as thyself” millions and millions of people have died, more than in all the recent wars put together. But we now have come to a point where we can realize that violence is not the answer, that it is not the way to solve human problems. So, terror seems to be the only way. I am not talking of terrorists blowing up churches, temples, and all that kind of thing, but the terror that if you try to destroy your neighbor you will possibly destroy yourself. That realization has to come down to the level of the common man, because we don’t want to be free from fear. All that we want to do is to play games with it and talk about freeing ourselves from fear. With or without guns. When the movement in the direction of becoming something other than what we are isn’t there any more, we are not in conflict with ourselves anymore, therefore we are not in conflict with anything around us, therefore there is no need for violence of any kind.
Suggested reading:
Violence is golden:http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2011/03/violence-is-golden/
And The Gun is Civilization: http://www.redstate.com/diary/denniswingo/2013/01/29/the-gun-is-civilization/
In a perfect world, only occupied by ethical non-aggressors, your ideas could work. In a world occupied by psychopaths and sociopaths who have no empathy, your idea gets you gassed or shot in the head.
We never question the solutions, which are the real problem.
We just have to look at facts. If the problems continue it’s because the solutions invented to solve them are false. Because we want to use certain answers to solve our problems, the problems continue.
Moreover, the solutions offered by holy people, as well as by psychologists and politicians are really not solutions at all. It is obvious, because if they were real solution, the problems would not be there anymore.
So what are they doing? They exhort you to try harder, to practice more, to cultivate this and that, to buy something instead of something, and so on. That’s all they do. If we brushed aside our hope and our fear and naiveté and treated the ones that propose solutions like businessmen, we would see that they do not deliver the goods, and that they never will. But instead we go on and on believing the bogus solutions offered by the so-called experts, living and dying in the hope that someday, somehow, we will be given a solution in the future in this life or in the next life. Problem is, there is no next life. All there is is the burden of the hope we carry with ourselves, and if we fell hopeless, we invent something else to give us hope because we are not ready to accept that there is no solution, nor any need to find one.
We have to question the ones who have offered us solutions in the past and those who want to offer us solutions now.
But sentimentality stands in the way of rejecting not only the solutions, but those who have offered us the solutions. Questioning that requires a tremendous courage on our part. We can have the courage to climb the mountain, swim the lakes, go on a raft to the other side of the Atlantic or Pacific. That any fool can do, but the courage to be on our own, to stand on our two solid feet, is something which cannot be given by somebody.
We cannot free ourselves of that burden by trying to develop that courage. If you are freed from the entire burden of the entire past of mankind, then what is left there is the real courage. The courage to stand alone.
If nothing else, the Jews could have gone down fighting and taken some Nazis with them.
Suppressed Harvard study confirms everything we knew about guns – crime goes down when civilians are armed, up when they are disarmed.
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1#CZtrxm2XgWDkPsFV.99
The frequent and inadequate use of the offensive propaganda term “nazi” slightly discredits this otherwise good article.
The Germans never called themselves Nazis, nor did they call themselves fascists.
They saw National Socialism as a bit different from Italian fascism, though both originated in the Workers Movement, along with Communists. The NSDAP prior to coming to power did even steal some high-profile Communists from the KPD.
I don’t think it’s propaganda to use the term “nazi” when you are talking about actual nazis.
That’s the only caveat. What he’s saying is true, but understanding that comparing anything to Nazi’s is automatically going to be misconstrued is imperative.
If the Germans wanted not to be called Nazi’s they shouldn’t have lost WW2.
Winner writes History.
Germany STILL managed to end up ruling Europe.
WTF?
Not for long with Merkel’s multi-culturalism.
Now Germany has a cheap labour force, just what they were lacking. This will only support their third attempt at taking over Europe.
Their smart enough to know by now not to do it with tanks the third time around.
Germany rules europe?
Bankers rule europe.
Bankers ruled Nazi Germany (the name Bush comes to mind) back then.
Bankers rule the German Bloc of Euro now.
Germany must have some significance to their rituals or something.
Rothschild was born in Frankfurt
So that’s why they love the place so much?
Yeah it’s where European banking families started
Now that makes sense.
Seems to be linked to the fall of the Roman Empire as well – the power centre just seem’s to move from one empire to another… from Europe to Britain, from Britain to the US… but is still the same people who can likely be traced back to Babylon!
And everyone thinks it’s real wars where one side beats the other…
Ever look at the backgrounds of those who are most for gun control? Full of Merchants.
Yes goyim! Turn ’em in!
Israel is loosening up their gun permitting right now as a result of the individualistic terrorists attacks.
Right, see the author’s point: “First, dictatorial regimes do not necessarily disarm their citizens—only
those elements of the population that are disfavored by the state.” Israel is not loosening gun control laws out of ideology about guns. They are doing it to put guns into the hands of the people they want to have guns.
Good point. In regard to your point about Israel, I’m reminded of a quote by a Japanese Admiral during WW2. This most likely explains why there was never a single incident (save the Pearl Harbor attack) on US soil during the war:
Admiral Yamamoto said, “To invade the United States would prove most difficult, because behind every blade of grass is an American with a rifle”.
I believe that was WW2! But indeed you are correct. An invasion in the US would be akin to Vietnam but infinitely worse. Everyone is armed, which would mean there would be at least 300,000,000 armed citizens ready to defend.
Minus the Socialists and feminists of course.
You’re right…hah! My morning coffee hasn’t kicked in. Thanks for pointing that out…I’ll edit my comment.
>.<
San Fran, Portland, Seattle, and the east coast hives would just surrender outright. So would Chicago, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis.
Many of their ‘men’ (if you call them that) would be conscripted to fight us, and used as the Soviets used punishment battalions.
Check that out if you’re unfamiliar with the idea.
The Democrat states would undoubtedly surrender.
I highly doubt the average gun owner would go down without a fight.
Let me nit pick one point. Guam was conquered by Japan and was technically US territory. Also, the Aleutian islands, part of the Alaskan territory at the time, were invaded and held for a period of months as part of the battle of Midway. It was intended to be a diversion, but didn’t divert.
Israel: Guns for me but not for thee!
“When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
– Thomas Jefferson
And that you are supposed to do with your revolvers and bolt-action rifles? In the hands of people with no military training?
What makes you think they have no military training?
Even if they have no military training, and will be no match for a government SWAT-team type of outfit, the mere fact that they possess weapons will give the state pause for thought.
If a repressive state (or anyone else who wishes to invade your home and do you harm) knows for certain that you are unarmed, they will be more likely to carry out the act.
The state does not want people to be killed in action – either its own agents or those it is attempting to arrest – because this creates the impression of chaos and lack of control, and may lead to criticism in the media and internationally. It is therefore less likely to attempt such actions against an armed populace.
I don’t agree that SWAT style teams are really that effective. On TV they look amazing but in practice they take down soft targets (like children and dogs). When they famously took on a well armed group (who didn’t even know they were coming) they were defeated – Waco.
A small group of well-armed men in a fortified position will easily resist a SWAT-style team in my view.
As for military training. I am not sure that directly applies to resisting the government. There will be no battle-lines drawn up, no formations and no bases. There will not even be pitched battles. We will have fourth generation warfare. Small groups sabotaging large targets. Training for this will be on the job or conducted by former military types resisting the government.
Even without this, you can right now pay to learn tactical shooting. Furthermore, how long do new recruits spend learning basic military skills? 8 weeks?
So I do not believe that having military training on Day One will be necessary. And military training without a gun isn’t much use.
Right, I think we agree that having guns is much more important than having military training.
And Waco was exactly the case I was thinking of, with regard to future government reticence to attack an armed populace. This was considered a public relations disaster for the agents of the state, in this case the FBI, and made it much less likely that they would consider a similar action in future.
Had the compound been unarmed, the FBI would simply have broken in, arrested everyone with little fuss, and it would have made them and the state look good and competent (and frankly, would have had little media coverage, which is what they want).
If they know that there is a good chance that any potential armed state action could be met with an armed response like Waco, and the resulting disastrous fallout in terms of fatalities, media, public image, etc, they will be less likely to carry it out.
That’s why the famous German writer and war hero Ernst Jünger wrote this about a young social democrat who shot down 6 S.A in front of his house :
” If we assume that we could have counted on just one such person in
every street in Berlin, the things would have turned out very
differently than they did. Long periods of peace foster certain optical
illusions: one is the conviction that the inviolability of the home is
grounded in the constitution, which should guarantee it. In reality, it
is grounded in the family father, who, sons at his side, fills the
doorway with an axe in his hand.”
(Der Waldganger)
Funny that this ‘young social democrat’ did nothing about the degeneracy promoted by the jews during the Weimar period…
Seriously? He was very outspoken against the Weimar Republic and recommended deporting the Jews to Palestine.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn agrees with Ben Carson:
“what would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if during periods of mass arrests people had simply not sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. … The Organs [police] would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers … and notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt”
Excellent point I’m glad you mentioned it. Although I don’t know how effective Jewish gun ownership would have been in Germany, but certainly if Russian citizens along with other groups in the Soviet Union been allowed to own guns things would have turned out differently. Legal gun ownership makes it difficult for the police to enforce state sanctioned terror. Fortunately we have 300 million guns in the US so making them illegal would be pointless.
In Mexico guns are illegal but no police officer is willing to risk his life trying to confiscate them.
Yep, and the only people that have them are the criminals and the police. In Mexico it’s hard to tell the difference between the two.
Good idea to carry a firearm in Mexico then.
There are a growing number of towns and regions where the populace have armed themselves and have gunned down the narcos. They have despaired of the governments commitment and ability to protect them and have taken their own safety into their own hands. They are armed with guns not machetes.
Unless we build that wall and send the 35 million illegals packing the picture you paint will be the new America. Mexico is where ever the Mexicans are.
It gets worse we have a number of people immigrating to the US who don’t share the same values as Americans do. When it comes to firearms and the 2nd Amendment, gun ownership is supposed to be a check on federal tyranny. Foreigners come to the US and the criminal gangs come with them. They get prayed on in their own neighborhoods by their own people. So naturally they blame guns. The radical left led by billionaires like Bloomberg and Soros want to take those guns away, of course there is a long term objective that they don’t mention which is tyranny of the minority upon the majority. They cannot obtain those objectives until they have a monopoly on weapons.
Soros, Bloomberg….I’m thinking there is something common to these two…..
Yes, I’ll let other people put the dots together. Those who know, know.
Is your last name McDonald?
Holy crap. A post that isn’t supporting the Holocaust.
It is unlikely that the 200,000 Jews could have resisted the Third Reich and won. However, they could have provided valuable recon and stirred up trouble in advance of a British invasion of Germany. We did a similar thing when we supported Spanish guerrillas in the Peninsular War. Wellington would have had a much bigger fight on his hands had Spanish Partisans not attacked French logistics and given the Duke valuable intelligence.
NOTHING TO SEE HERE!
Move along…
The Holocaust deniers can’t seem to get their story straight: The Holocaust didn’t happen, but boy Hitler did us a favor by killing all those Jews any way.
Straw man. Literally no one says this.
Why are they called ‘deniers’?
My understanding is that they dispute numbers rather than deny that anything happened.
I find the anti-semitism on ROK to be funny. The allegation that Jews support SJW crap is valid, but so the fuck what? A bunch of atheists, Catholics and Protestants are also SJWs. Ted Turner, one of the biggest leftists in America, is an atheist who said Christianity was a religion for losers. George Soros, another atheist, is a huge SJW. The Koch brothers are ethnically Jewish, and generally support conservative causes. Nathan Rothschild essentially bankrolled England’s war against the first SJWs: the French Revolutionaries.
214,000 people is nothing to sneeze at. Much more could have been done if they didn’t stay in denial to what was really happening. Could they have stopped the 3rd Reich all by themselves? No. Could they have worked from within to disrupt the German forces and reduced their effective military capabilities? Most likely.
Hold on, this might be a blonde moment but,
If there were 200,000 Jews in Germany, how were 6 million killed?
Or am I missing something major here?
I almost asked the same thing…had to go re-read the article more closely:
“It is mind bending to suggest that personal firearms in the hands of the small number of Germany’s Jews (about 214,000 remaining in Germany in 1938) could have stopped the totalitarian onslaught of Nazi Germany when the armies of Poland, France, Belgium and numerous other countries were over-whelmed by the Third Reich.”
Then my response to those who say the 214,000 Jews even armed couldn’t have done anything is to ask whether 6 million being armed might have. Imagine if the Allies had an additional 6 million troops living in the enemy territory…
Any attempt to say the Jews couldn’t do anything even if armed is the thinking of a pussy anyway – if your gonna die you can at least kill some of the cunts who would have you dead.
Thats a basic human dignity that is lost on silver spoon race crusader twats.
Agreed. Pretty much what I was getting at. Just think of 214,000 guerilla fighters already behind enemy lines and keenly aware of the layouts of the cities. Can we say “mayhem”?
We can.
No doubt some part of the non Jewish German population would take up a similar stance as well.
They rounded them up from conquered and allied countries throughout Europe, if you believe the 6M figure. They also killed another 6M or so political dissidents, Gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholic priests who questioned their pogrom, the mentally retarded, and people who just pissed off their informant neighbors.
If only the Jews had Kratom.
The figure is going off the article’s count of Jews in Germany in 1938. Remember, the Germans fucked over Jews in Poland, France, The Netherlands etc…(their conquered territories).
Very well-written and researched article. I agree — Ben Carson’s point was not entirely accurate from a historical perspective. But, the vitriol against Carson was unwarranted and was coming from a much deeper place than a mere disagreement with his position on gun control.
Yep. Something about the liberal agenda (disarmament and democide) being exposed. And the hypocrisy of the jews as well.
Does Israel have open borders? Does Israel restrict its citizens from owning firearms?
Hmm, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Guns are bad mmmmmkay.
The American people have had guns all along. Did these weapons stop the government’s imposition of feminism, gay acceptance and diversity on us?
not yet.
I didn’t have a logical place to put this in the article, but Israel allows active IDF members to carry their weapon in public, even when they are not in uniform. Compare this to the US were our military is not allowed to be armed even when they are on a military base.
It stands blatantly in everyone’s face that Jews want left-leaning culture and policies for everyone else, while they themselves are extremely ethnocentric and conservative.
They want multiculturalism for everyone while they have a special vocabulary for people that are not Jewish.
They want gun control in the US, but people can walk around Israel with machine guns and basic military training is mandatory.
Bad goy, bad goy! You know too much!
This video says it all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dbu6tvwPZWA
Good god, why have I never seen this before? Incredible.
The Zionists suppressed it.
Your use of the word “they” assumes that all jews are part of one consciousnesses, and that israelis are the ones dictating policies in the US.
I’m not saying US jews aren’t liberal, of course
The best we can do is deport them all to Israel so that they can no damage us with their influence.
Fair enough.
I have Jewish friends I’m not an absolutist or anything.
But it is sketchy when Jews promote liberal policies but find ways to completely avoid the influence of those policies.
I agree they are disproportionately leftist and hypocritical when it comes to tribalism. They look after their own but don’t think anyone else should have that right.
can be answered by asking the question, Which side would they or you be on when shit goes down?
if for example the Chinese invaded my country (Australia), woudl the chinese immigrants be on the side of Anglo australia? the country that has allowed them to exploit the society that anglo Australians have built?..or will they side with china?
I dunno, multi culti made the US great, way back when.
The problem now is we now have waves of people coming in, and the only reason they are allowed in is to lower expectations as to what it means to “live the american dream”. These “happy just to be here” mofos have a lower expectation of what it means to be successful- just look where they came from- third world countries. The bar is already low.
Oldtimers retire, contracts get renegotiated, all the goodies get reduced. Happy to be here mofos think its awesome, oldtimers are burnt out, sell out the next wave of hires. This wouldnt happen if legacy type hires were still allowed(Daddy was a fireman, hes gonna fight for his son) but they arent, because “racism”.
Its all a way to weaken unions, thereby reducing bennies.
I spoke to an investigator, years ago, who told me he had to vet people who shouldnt be cops because…diversity. They did not pass the pysche eval, or wouldnt if they were white… these people are out there “protecting” you haha
“I dunno, multi culti made the US great, way back when”
I’m not sure the African or Native Americans found the multiculturalism so great way back when.
Your posts are all over the map dude- whats your point, I mean overall?
Not sure I agree with the first statement.
Not at liberty to say with regards to your request.
Are you worried by the truth?
What, that multi culturalism was a good thing, way back when?
Not worried by the truth, what are you trying to say exactly?? What truth?
My exact problem with multiculturalism. The lower of standards, lowering of pay for ancestors of the people who built it.
The dilution of culture and values with culture and values from people who’s culture and values are undesirable.
Is that lube in the right hand of the first bird?
The woman in the top photo has what I call legs up to her back.
Bonus points if anyone can guess what that means…?
Israel’s nut’s – being gay there is legit right…?
Legs up to their back = no ass
Have these bonus points.
Is being gay legit in Israel tho?
I doubt that guns will be outright taken from the American people for some time. However, I am convinced that it will happen within the next couple decades. My generation (millennial) is so overwhelmingly liberal that it seems it’s only a matter of time before the second amendment- and all other rights- are eventually stripped of us.
Never underestimate the pendulum swinging back to the right. There’s evidence that some people are starting to wake up to the fact these liberal policies are completely wrong.
Just the other day I saw another article where a school system started allowing their teachers to carry guns in order to protect their class. The more gun-free zones keep getting shot up, the more the liberal narrative on gun control falls apart.
I agree with you that we are bound to see a surge of right-wing politics within the next few years. However, two things:
1) How long will this surge last and how effective will it be?
2) Will this thought carry over to people my age and younger?
As for you saying the more gun-free zones getting shot up, the more the narrative fails, on the contrary; it seems the more shootings there are the stronger the narrative gets. How many people are aware that these shootings all seem to follow a similar pattern, mentally unstable young man with a weapon in a gun free zone shooting innocents? Certainly not the people on my college campus watching Stephen Colbert religiously and indoctrinated by leftist teachers and professors.
Campuses are a liberal echo chambers. Rarely do they reflect real life. Most of the people I speak with are at least willing to discuss the idea of getting rid of gun free zones. The fact that those numbnuts are going to Stephen Colbert for their news speaks volumes about their actual level of intelligence.
I wouldn’t be so convinced. First there are 123 million households in the USA. There are roughly .9 guns for every person in the USA. Or about 3 per household.
Who is going to kick in 120M doors? They’re going to need one hell of a large army. An army who fears its officers more than certain death.
There is a (historically accurate) scene in Enemy At the Gates, showing NKVD troops machine gunning any Soviet conscripts who did not advance directly into German machine guns and mines.
Again, I don’t think they have the manpower or the will to do it.
But surely a house to house search of every house will get rid of most of the guns.
How many dead at the end? 100 million or so?
The gun grabbers are clinically insane. They don’t value their own lives, they value mine even less, and live in a fantasy world where bad shit doesn’t happen and bad people, bent on mayhem, don’t exist.
Fuck. That. Shit.
Molon Labe or shut the fuck up.
The NKVD machine gunning is an extreme case of arm twisting. In peacetime even before sjw’s, small time arm twisting spelled the death knell of the small church and local small municipal government, abrogating much power to big box gov. Small time churches and schools had things like ‘manditory reporting’ which they meekly obliged in turncoating on their fellows. The large billboards flashing ”see something say something” is the same arm twisting pre ordinance, enticing universal snitching to be voluntary before it becomes cumpulsory. Before it’s mandatory to rat out your own neighbor, the signs are a friendly reminder to voluntarily flush your friends and neighbors before it becomes ordered law to do so. Here again the small town and neighborly dynamic abrogates to the larger collective community borg think. Forget your neighbor, be a part of the collective and turn someone in. People need to recognize arm twisting propaganda.
Like I said, they would have no chance of stopping the 3rd Reich, but they could have gone full guerrilla and really made a mess of things from the inside; assassinations, cutting off supply lines, etc.
They could’ve stopped so many of them being gassed and starved.
Anybody who says otherwise is full of shit and deserves to be placed into a gun free country as a future victim of democide. FUCK YOU SETH ROGAN. Piece of shit see if I ever patronize your crap again.
Jews for Personal Firearm ownership has a great graphic on Democide: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
Using the Holocaust? Wow. Here we have a black telling truths about liberal agendas and the Hollywood jews and intelligentsia are in an uproar. There is a disruption in the cultural marxist force.
And we should not let the irony escape us that it is those who have no guns who wish to FORCE those of that do to relinquish them.
That’s fucking hilarious. Luckily for the overly emoting gun grabbers, we have control of our emotions and have not used our guns in anger. Yet.
That day draws ever nearer. And anybody who thinks taking my guns will make them safer is fucked in the head, and is bound for the cattle cars.
No single entity has killed more innocent people that governments.
I will not board teh cattle car. I will not ‘burn in the camps’.
I will take this guy’s advice.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things
have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night
to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and
had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass
arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of
the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling
with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on
the staircase, [B] but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had
boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people
with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?…[/B] The Organs
would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport
and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would
have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even
more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and
simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
―
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Since we still have guns, it won’t be axes, hammers, or pokers. It will be aimed and accurate rifle fire, enfilade, ambushes, burning MRAPs/Bearcats, and dead entry stacks.
Gun grabbers, after you fuck off, MOLON LABE.
Or mind your own goddamned business before somebody gets hurt.
Oh boy.
Just don’t go shooting up a school Mike buddy.
He does seem a bit worked up, doesn’t he?
I don’t shoot anything but cans and paper targets, and occasionally an animal during a designated hunting season.
Your problem with people defending themselves from being wiped out is what exactly? And how does the idea that self defense is good equate to a school shooting?
FUCK OFF
Like you said, talking about alt history is basically impossible. But even if armed Jews only posed a “mere nuisance” to the Nazi regime, it is also impossible to predict what the reaction to that would have been. Had every day Germans seen what the Nazis were doing in the early stages, it is possible more Germans would have resisted themselves. Or not. Who knows? Perhaps it would have simply been better to die resisting than to die starving to death in a concentration camp. Stark choices either way.
I think I would have rather died resisting knowing that every bastard I took down with me is one less that can harm my fellow countrymen. Plus, I’ve heard starving to death is a terrible way to go. Would rather die quickly.
Oh look, leftists labeling an argument offensive so that they don’t have to provide a counter argument
Perhaps Ben Carson should have used the American Revolution as his example instead. If the colonists were forbidden to bear arms by British rule, the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolutionary War may not have occurred or would have been ineffective and we, the people, would still be under her Majesty’s rule.
Dunno…while you’re right, the libs would probably have cheered that outcome. “Yeah! We would’ve been part of Europe! Whoo!”
Without the US being a part of the Allied Forces, we may all be under the Third Reich for 1000 years.
Emperor Hitler III would be beloved by most here if he promises to keep out minorities and create incentives to perk up the birth rate of Western Europe.
How embarrassing most people were worse off under independence esp. minorities.
And, as always, the distraction to the hypothetical/rhetorical “but the government could set up concentration camps!” completely deflects from the point. If you can agree there’s a murder epidemic, largely perpetrated by people using guns, then what is your solution to preventing those murders?
Is it to arm and “harden” all schools, restaurants, movie theaters, shopping malls and other potential targets?
Is it to “Wild West” the country and expect every citizen to arm themselves and be willing to shoot first/straightest at need?
Or is it just to ignore and deny the problem, using bullshit deflections like pulling up the Holocaust as a way to change the topic?
Me suspects it’s #3.
Murder epidemic? What do you base this on?
Denial, got it
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34120247
Apples and oranges. The article itself attributes the spike in violence to the “Ferguson effect”, not gun availability.
Besides, most gun violence occurs in areas where firearms are restricted, rendering your argument for gun control a moot point.
The Nazi-centric spin on why gun control is bad is completely false. Ordinary Germans considered loyal to the government (and the overwhelming majority of the German people eventually supported Hitler) had no problem obtaining a rifle or pistol. The idea that Hitler was a dictator kept in place by force of arms against the wishes of an oppressed population is b.s. Hitler was wildly popular, especially after a couple of years in power during which he revived the economy and gave Germany back its self-respect. True, Jews, Communists and a handful of other malcontents hated him (and the numbers of such¨”resisters” was inflated enormously after Hitler´s defeat) but they were a small minority. Hitler´s regime was geuninely popular and enjoyed the whole-hearted support of most patriotic Germans. German aristocrats, bitter over their loss of power to people they considered beneath them, formed the core of most of the resistance to Hitler and they surely had access to any gun they wanted. The true argument against gun control lies in the history of Communist governments. Of course the liberal leftists would prefer to shy away from this, since they plan to impose similar governments on us some day. ALL Communist regimes immediately imposed almost total gun control and were right to do it – armed rebellions against the Communist regimes from the Soviet Union to China to Vietnam and Eastern Europe and Cuba failed largely because the people were not armed. There was never any revolt against the Nazis because, like it or not, they generally represented the people of Germany. In the case of the Jews in Germany, they would have been wise to either quietly leave the country (which many did) or seek some kind of reasonable deal with the regime – it was not until their fellow Jews had largely provoked a world-wide war against Germany that the Nazis developed their homicidal plans against people they saw as a foreign enemy. Foolish Jews, many in the United States, were to blame for the worsening condition of the Jews in Europe. They published blood-curdling threats against Germany from the safety of New York, declaring the whole Jewish people to be in a no quarter war with the Hitler regime. The Nazi regime took them at their word. We know the result. Until relatively late in the war (1942) there was never any plan to exterminate the Jews, though Nazi troops killed tens of thousands of Jews in Poland and the Soviet Union. It should be said that many of the “Jews” killed in the Soviet Union were executed because they were Communist functionaries; Jews were heavily over-represented in both the Communist Party and the dreaded Soviet secret police, itself responsible for the GUlag and millions of murders. It is true that the Hitler regime removed Jews from positions of power and influence in Germany, placed some humiliating restrictions on them and, in some cases, confiscated wealth that the Nazi regime believed was ill-gotten. The anger of the Jews is understandable. That said, the Nazi regime did not regard Jews as true Germans and was determined to restrict their power in Germany. The awful fate of European Jews was a result of the outbreak of war. It was never an aim of the Nazi regime before that time. The Germans would have been happy to dump the Jews in Madagascar or Uganda and leave it at that. Insulting and uncomfortable for the Jews, perhaps, but far better than a gas chamber.
Interesting viewpoint of WW2. Not arguing at all, as I’m sure the version of history I was taught is school was biased, but where did you get this information?
You are correct Hitler was adored the way girls would faint at a Michael Jackson concert.
There were no homicidal gas chambers. No cyanide residue was ever found in the “shower rooms”. Each crematorium could only burn a handful of bodies per day. At best the camps could have processed a few hundred bodies a week, it’s physically impossible for the camps to have processed the numbers “historians” claim. The biggest red flag is that you can go to jail in Europe and Canada for questioning the holocaust narrative. Think about that, there is only one historical event you are not allowed to question, by law. What are they hiding? Why do they fear investigation of this historical event and only this historical event?
Let alone the fact that the Jooos claim Zyklon B was the cyanide used to kill all the Violin players. The gas in Zyklon B takes hours to release from the Diatamcious pellets. In Treblinka, the Joos claim the Nazis used diesel engine fumes to kill the little darlins, equally absurd. As Pat Buchanan said “the problem with diesel fumes is that it is not going to kill anyone”. Oy Vey! Hitler, Hitler, Hitler! Any examination of the Holohoax narrative revels the absolute absurdity of this latest example of Jewish story telling.
I don’t think Hitler was that popular. The Nazi party failed to win a majority. Hitler became Chancellor though back channel deal making and legal chicanery – kind of like how Bush came to power and Obama is consolidating it.
True, but within a couple of years he was overwhelmingly popular.
Fair enough. Let the Government take the guns. The thing is watch the elites, “Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife”, and all the rest of the European shitlib heads of state get whizzed around in bullet proof limo’s with bodyguards armed to the teeth. Will they give it all up when the guns are safely under lock and key?
When you are behind that kind of security you are shielded from the world of the citizenry. They have had nothing in common with their subjects for decades. They turn up at funerals of those killed in mass shootings with their security in tow and see nothing in the irony of their same security packing Glocks, etc. But then they’re worth it………?
“Clinton girlfriends wife”
The correct term is “Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife”.
Oops I’ll correct……thanks for that….
You’re welcome, my good sir.
Looks like Carson didn’t say “if Jews were armed” though. Did he say “the German people”? But Leftists, with their constant appeals to offense and non-argumentative persuasion, immediately play the Jew-card because “protected class” and all that PC nonsense.
I’ve seen this over and over again: Leftists become very offended by rational counter-arguments to their cherished emotional positions.
The German were armed so what’s your point?
Of course he wasn’t right, because they are Cowards, regardless
+Holohoax, didn’t happen
http://www.dailystormer.com/magic-negro-explains-he-doesnt-plan-to-gas-kikes/
LOL
Take this with a grain of salt because I’m not a US citizen but just like having more guns leads to more gun violence, more cars leads to more car crashes. Should we ban cars because of that? Of course not, we just regulate the possession of cars. Gun ownership is already regulated in a way that people who clearly shouldn’t own guns can’t get them. Yes, a few mentally ill people will get them sometimes and may or may not do terrible things with them but because of the way the justice system functions some guilty people will wrongly be found innocent and yet I don’t see anyone in Congress arguing against the presumption of innocence…
On top of that , how can we know for sure that imposing stricter regulations on guns, or even banning them outright, will lead to a decrease in violent crimes? Maybe it will just increase the amount of stabbings because law abiding citizens won’t have guns to defend themselves against criminals. Anti-gun people just assume that less guns means less violence but that’s nothing but an unsubstantiated claim… Speaking of criminals, do the liberals really think that people who really want to get a gun just won’t do it simply because it’s illegal? Tell me America, how is your prohibition on drugs doing? How many people below 21 years old have drunk a beer or smoked cigarettes, or even bought them?
To me it seems like imposing more regulation on guns will just penalise law abiding, responsible gun owners, who obviously represent the majority of gun owners in the US. A warning from a Canadian: in my country, I’m not allowed to carry a weapon for self-defense, even if it’s just a butter knife, and if I’m being attacked, I’m supposed to politely ask for my attacker to stop while I phone the police so they can come and stop the guy with their guns. And if I dare to defend myself, I have to be careful not to hurt him too much because I might be the one accused of assault (please Canada, make more laws to defend the poor criminals against the dangerous law abiding citizens). Don’t let liberals turn the US into Canada, it’s not as nice here as they show you in the media.
Pretty much summed it all up in the one sentence about our war on drugs:
Banning guns is a pipe-dream. We can’t keep drugs out of our country so why do people think we’d have any better luck keeping guns out. They are clearly out of touch with reality.
We don’t seem to ever learn. What happened during Prohibition in the US? People still drank. Organized crime was rampant. Mobsters made millions $$$.
It got so bad that we had to have another Constitutional Amendment just to repeal the last one.
So why have any laws at all? There’s a law against murder? How’s that working out?
There’s laws against murder because murder is an actual act against another person, specifically taking away their right to life. Owning/carrying a gun does not infringe on anyone’s rights. That’s a pretty weak argument dude…
lol… didn’t take them long!
Hah, indeed.
The point is to show that making a law doesn’t automatically stop the activity. People here like to say that gun and drug laws don’t work so we should not have them – so why not repeal all laws?
Of course a law can’t physically stop a person from committing any act. It serves to dissuade them from performing said act or risk the penalty. The purpose of laws are to protect people from having their rights infringed upon and, if they ARE infringed upon, there are repercussions towards the offender. That’s why we have laws against murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, etc. Other laws, such as drug and gun control laws do not infringe on the rights of others. You carrying a Glock does not infringe on my right to life and liberty unless you USE the Glock to rob me of life or property. Carrying the gun itself is not a crime and there should never be a law against it. The laws are there to punish people who use the gun unjustifiably against another person.
Me thinks you’re either trying to troll or you have an absolutist approach to how laws work instead of how they actually work. Could be wrong, but you haven’t proven otherwise yet.
Murder would be unethical and immoral without a law. And almost everyone automatically recognizes it as wrong and/or evil.
Real rape is also immoral and unethical.
Lots of other things are as well. Theft, slapping a baby, shooting your neighbors horse, polluting your property in a way that it pollutes your neighbors property, etc…
Owning a gun and carrying it in a non-threatening manner and never using it to hurt anyone is absolutely not evil, immoral or unethical. Even if a government says it is illegal.
The downside of this argument is of course that this logic leads to accepting all humans being allowed to own any weapon they can afford. An example would be that it leads to the idea that any human should be allowed to own cheap chemical or biological weapons as long as they don’t use them in a threatening way or a way that infringes on other peoples rights. Thoughts anyone?
Some laws are supported by universal morals and ethics. Most laws are made for the convenience of the state. If my owning of a firearm infringed on someone else’s rights, it would be logical to create a law against my owning of that firearm, even if creation of said law didn’t fully eradicate firearm ownership.
So it is with murder, rape, (should be with abortion which is murder) etc… Murder does still exist but society as a whole condemns it and you know you risk the full power of the state coming down on you for such a thing, in addition vengeful family members of the deceased.
It is immoral to create laws that infringe on peoples rights and activities, when said activities don’t infringe on other peoples rights. So gun ownership does not infringe on anyone else’s rights. Therefore, it is automatically immoral to create a law against it. The fact that laws against it don’t work is just one extra point to boot.
No law is 100% effective. So laws against things that are immoral usually give more power to people whom are very willing to act immorally. Making alcohol illegal meant that the best behaved of people where less likely to drink, but most people were still likely to drink and anyone whom wasn’t afraid of the law was made richer. This empowered criminals with more money and caused a lot of gang violence fighting over the profits.
Quite literally, the exact same thing is happening with drugs. Drug cartels are empowered to the point where they are able to buy off government officials at the rate of millions of dollars a year (per official), and they are the most powerful organizations in Mexico and central/south America.
It is also shown that in area’s in the US where certain kinds of guns are illegal, or guns are illegal in general, criminals are much more likely to have those guns than law abiding citizens. I’m defining criminals here as those people willing to participate in violent immoral crime. Not tax evaders or shitty drivers, or otherwise law abiding citizens whom happen to own an illegal gun anyway.
If you were to outlaw guns entirely in the US, it would have the same effect as prohibition on alcohol and then drugs has had. Criminals would get rich off of it and more guns would end up with dangerous people and less guns would end up with people whom are likely to avoid danger if they can. Ironically, giving them even less of a likelyhood of avoiding danger. So it is a valid point to say that the law won’t work. Unless the governments definition of working is for criminals to have guns and law abiding people to be unarmed. Some politicians would like this I’m sure. We’d need more protection.
I agree with your sentiment but gun-controllers will simply say “we can’t stop murder so should we just make that legal as well?”
It is the principle. The principle is property rights. Based on this principle it is unethical to ban drugs and control guns.
Yep.
Take the UK for example, not a massive gun problem BUT,
Guns are not legal in the UK nor are they readily available.
Criminals that want to get hold of one or many NEVER have any problems and can always get hold of firearms. In the UK there are incidents involving SUB MACHINE GUN’S from former conflicts in the baltic states or Northern Ireland.
No state can stop people from getting gun’s if they really want to and in fact when the state try’s to, the criminals just try harder and succeed.
If a state has any troops stationed in a conflict zone, guns will be found in the hands of criminals.
Or BB gun’s will be customised to fire proper bullets.
Untrue, guns are legal in the UK they are just heavily regulated.
You mean for farmers to own shotguns or you mean anyone can get a license and a pistol?
Theoretically, yes.
Theoretically yes which one?
There should be no regulation of either guns or cars. Both are an infringement of your property rights. Just because you are deemed “mentally ill” (a nebulous term) you lose the right to defend yourself?
I must reject this argument wholeheartedly. The State is already arbitrarily deciding people are mentally ill and taking away their right of self-defense. They started with “felons”, now “crazy people”. Who next? You?
You built into your argument and explicit and unproven assumption. “More guns lead to more gun violence”. This is the argument made by the gun-controllers. This argument is demonstrably false.
Gun-controllers do not want to ban guns of course, they just want them in their hands and not yours. This is what gun control is really all about. They use guns to control you.
You drive your car on publicly funded roads so cars and ‘property rights’ argument is null
That makes no sense. The existence of publicly funded roads are themselves infringements on property rights.
Luckily there have been some precedents set for self-defense in Canada.
The case of Ian Thompson was by far the most important. He fired warning shots at 2 vagrants who had a vendetta against him. They were firebombing his property, with him in the building at the time. Although the charges were dropped down to ‘careless storage of ammunition’, they were eventually all tossed out. Albeit he was out 60,000$ in lawyers fees.
Chris Bishop, who shot at 5 home intruders (who had intended to kill him) with his AR (killing 3, all with shots to the back while they were retreating) had his murder convictions overturned.
The next one, which is still in the courts is the case of 16 year old Kyle McCosh of Manitoba. He awoke to the sound of a home invader. It was only himself and his widow Mom living in the home at the time. He fire 2 warning shots with his shotgun to scare the intruder off, and was then arrested by the police afterwards and is currently facing a long list of charges.
There’s something wrong with Canada.
All three of them should have called the police and waited patiently for them to come and save them.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Absolutely. How else will the media get heart-wrenching stories about the poor innocents massacred in their own homes so they can push for increases in police funding, welfare programs, and gun control?
It seems Trudeau’s government is looking to restrict guns even further. What’s wrong with Canada is that we look at anything called “change” and assume it’s going to make our lives better.
So basically… Buttmad leftists can’t counter the solid fact that if the Jews were not forcibly disarmed by the Nazi government, things would’ve ended differently. Warsaw Uprisings would’ve happened across Europe.
So instead of conceding defeat, ignoring the argument or at least attempting to counter it, they make a Royal Proclamation that any speech involving the aforementioned arguments are verboten. You’re a holocaust denier, fuck you racist blah blah blah.
Civilian Jews were, no doubt, outgunned, outskilled and outnumbered. They wouldn’t have won some stunning victory… But it would have made a difference, there’s no doubt about that.
Rightists can’t handle the fact that the majority of Germans who had increasingly relaxed gun laws didn’t use their gun right to help out a persecuted minority. The 2A romance is assuming the majority of people being persecuted by a government when it tends to be a despised minority.
Well, Germans did take part in some resistance, I mean Operation Valkyrie is a good example.. But that’s entirely besides the point.
The point is things would’ve been different if the Jews hadn’t been disarmed. The laws for Germans is irrelevant.
The fact that the Nazi government systematically disarmed Jews in order to weaken them as ethnic/political entity is testament to the importance of the right to bear arms. They lost much of their ability to resist genocide, even if an ultimately futile effort, then and there.
I’d say that if there was a stronger firearms culture in the Jewish community at the time, it would’ve hindered Nazi efforts at confiscation, changing the whole game in WW2.
So Jews were already viewed with suspicion and suppose they started shooting those who would confiscate their guns (in an alternate time line) – chances are it would solidified the image of Jews as violent separatists who clearly deserve to be eliminated. In other words not much would have changed. Maybe some here could feel good they would have died fighting than gassed but still.
No no no, you misunderstood.
I’m not saying they should’ve just started firing early on.
I said if they had a stronger gun culture, they would’ve resisted confiscation much more. You know, waiting until the last moment to fight back.
Most of the firearms used in the Warsaw uprising were dinky soviet pistols that they could hide, and whatever 2nd rate rifles the Polish resistance could spare.
I’m just imagining a different scenario, even if it ultimately ended in defeat, if there was a big underground market for high-quality, modern firearms in the Jew neighborhoods prior to Kristalnacht and all that.
Was he right? Yes. If the Jews had guns I think its reasonable to expect them to have used them to keep themselves being sent to concentration camps. These f’ing liberals. Ohhhhhh the horror how can you demean the plight of the Jew and…how did he do that? This ring fence of political correctness must stop. Nothing hateful or demeaning was said.
I would argue that the culture and tradition of gun ownership prevents tyranny in a deeper way than just the threat of the populace using arms against the government, which agreed, would be futile.
Our military is comprised of our citizens. These citizens know what the second amendment is. I would bet a large percentage of our military men and women support the second amendment and are against gun control.
The point is that I believe any despot who tried to control our country too much would have a very tough time turning our military against the populace. The military would do what it thought was right (i.e. not kill citizens, who will defend themselves), and the despot would fail.
Not only was he right but imagine anybody trying to occupy the whole of Europe if it was as free to arm as the US is.
Never compromise on gun control issues. The liberals want to kill the 2nd by a death of 1000 cuts. Mag restrictions here, insurance requirements theres, let throw in a waiting period…ect. The end game is you have no rights.
If they had the necessary congressional votes…they would vote to send sheeps door to door to take every gun you own.
All that bullshit about caring for the poor is just that, bullshit.
They love registration fees, ccw permit fees, asinine added taxes for ammo.. By the end of it, you’ve spent 300 minimum on a decent gun, hundreds or more on fees, registration and classes in some cities.. All to keep the plebs defenseless and dependent on the state for all of their needs.
Au contraire, how would Black folk like hear that Righties want plenty of guns on the streets in the hope that the darkie will eventually shoot each other to death?
Lol, I’ve never heard that from the far right. Sounds like something they’d say, though.
Sounds like a Leftist wet dream you’re espousing there, skippy.
If you’ve never heard it from us, then it can hardly be said that it sounds like something we’d say.
Meanwhile the Left is awash in open racism and get a pass.
Creeping incrementalism: The way no one ever sees it coming.
Guns are designed to kill. its as simple as that. Being able to purchase military machine guns is absurd and anyone who advocates being able to do this, is not someone who should be listened to and is obviously misguided.
being able to own guns that can mow down 10’s of people in less than a minute and release 100’s of rounds in said time, is insane. hunting rifles and some hand guns etc are still available here in Australia with screening.
Military machine guns are regulated by the nfa act of 1934. They are very hard to aquire in the united states. If you want machine gun in the us, it will cost you around $20,000 USD.
Criminals dont spend that kind of money to kill people.
what about $10,000, would they spend that much?
Well if you want a machinegun in the US…you need a lawyer. He will have to set up a trust and the gun will be set up as the principle. You go through a nfa background check with the fbi and pay a $200 tax for processing a form 1 document. You have a waiting period of around 8-16 months also.
Only millionaires with perfect criminal records can own a machine gun in america.
The gang banging thug and the medically abused psycho dont have the time purchase a machine gun. In the entire history of the US, no NFA firearms has ever been used in a crime.
Aw shucks shouldn’t that be unconstitutional?
Yes.
It is.
Indeed it is as was agreed to by the SCOUS. However, requiring a tax stamp to purchase a machine gun, and then never issuing any such stamps, was ruled to be completely legal/constitutional as it was merely a tax issue.
What a wussy cuck. Be a disarmed bitch and be proud of it. Maybe you should be like Captain Sweden. This a website for men not Aussy manginas.
It is NOT legal to own automatic guns in the US without paying out the ass and doing excruciating amounts of paperwork. Not. Legal.
Carson is right. The critics are those who will never vote for him anyway, and he is right as well as manly to not be browbeaten into withdrawing, apologizing or modifying his comment.
Nice to see a logical article on the absurd statement Carson made, while still providing some reasonable arguments for gun ownership. I’m glad ROK isn’t an echo chamber and we can see shades of grey where media pundits try to paint issues in black or white (such as blaming Obama for everything just because he’s generally a bad leader). For the record, an armed populace rebellion in Warsaw ended up in a few hundred thousand dead Poles. Yes, they killed some Nazis, and then the Nazis leveled Warsaw. They destroyed almost 90% of the city. I was unaware of the Nazi liberalization of gun laws. Good, informative article.
I’m not sure that Afghanistan proves either argument–yes the Soviets (and now the USA after 15+ years) was unable to conquer them, but it’s also a violent and dangerous place to live.
Glad to see ROK is still a place where we can have strong values and still be reasonable.
nice name pretty much sums up your level of intelligence.
Sounds like something i heard in the Simpsons “What if the king of England comes here and starts pushing you around”
hypothetical nonsense.
Anyone with those kind of guns would be more likely statistically (especially in the situation you eloquently describe) to kill their own family than the intruders.
I own machineguns. They cost around $20,000 each. Anyone who owns a machinegun cleans it and never uses it cause it is too valuble.
The last picture is telling: the Natives couldn’t have won against the U.S. army no matter what. The fact is that they had two options: surrender or die and as such is pretty much what would have happened to the Jewish people had they tried to fight the Nazis considering how little they made up of the entire population of Germany at that time. Not to mention the six million numbers comes from Jew rounded up from Europe in a way they would hardly be a unified fighting force.
The Indians seem to have increased their numbers since the days of colonization.
Yea you’re right.
Having a gun in the home to prevent something that hasn’t happened to you or anyone you know, outweighs the damage that poorly regulated gun control has actually caused.
you win. teach me your ways.
I know many people that have defended themselves with firearms. Everyone has a right to self defense from criminals and tyranny. Our rights dont end where your feelings begin.
You are either incredibly stupid or a feminist troll. If you are a women, take your comments elsewhere. Women are discouraged from commenting on here.
Mate if i was trolling, you could be accused of making it too fucking easy.
out of curiosity, What tyranny are you referring to specifically? Something tells me that if there was actual Tyranny to rebel against with your guns, the people that have the guns couldn’t possibly be smart enough to organise themselves against such a threat.
this is why all over the world Americans are mocked and called stupid.
“out of curiosity, What tyranny are you referring to specifically? Something tells me that if there was actual Tyranny to rebel against with your guns, the people that have the guns couldn’t possibly be smart enough to organise themselves against such a threat.”
It was called the American Revoltion, you Europussy faggot. Read some history other that what your mangina professors taught you. Someone calling herself “God” criticizing others. That’s just rich. Around here in America, we call asswipes like you stupid. Because you are. And clearly a pussy too.
“Having easy access to firearms comes with a cost—it means there is an increased risk of gun violence.” yeah because there is soooooooooooo much gun violence in Switzerland.
Hell, take out a few major cities in the U.S. and our gun violence rate drops to the level of Switzerland or below. We all know the actual real problem, but political correctness silences any discussion of it in the public square.
Look, the Federal government is full of malice. If they want your guns it’s not for a good reason.
Switzerland lacks the atomizing, dehumanizing, sick American cultural wasteland.
There are different types of guns, that are used for different purposes. Be assured that what the US, Saudia Arabia and Pakistan funnelled to the Afghani mujahedin was not six-shooters; but assault rifles, explosives, RPGs, Stinger SAMs and other military equipment.
Yes, guns can work as a defence or deterrent against occupation or dictatorship, but not any guns — or only guns — will do. You need a large body of militarily trained, appropriately equipped and, preferably, organised men. Afghanistan is one example, the resistance in Iraq after the 2003 invasion is another. Switzerland too, they have a very large territorial army where the soldiers keep their personal weapons in their homes, and heavy equipment is accessible at squad and platoon levels. Also countries like Cuba (today) and China (in the 60-70:s) have had military equipment distributed in wide layers of the population.
By contrast, the millions of handguns that people in the US have will do very little to stop a dictator or an invader. They work very well to kill fellow citizens though, more than 30’000 annually — a figure that is completely unparalleled in the rest of the western world.
So you think we only own handguns then, do you?
And you don’t actually stop to consider that reports of “gun violence” also include when police shoot bad guys, as well as suicides, right? It’s not like there are bajillions of people walking around shooting other people for kicks. In fact, our “gun violence” has dropped from 6 in 100,000 in 1995 to 3 in 100,000 in 2015.
If you want to know the actual reasons, just take a look where the vast overwhelming majority of actual gun violence is occurring. It ain’t in flyover country “red state” areas, but in a few very large cities that all, surprise, generally go full gun control and Democrat year after year.
No, I do not think that you _only_ own handguns, but according to all available statistics, handguns and shotguns constitute an overwhelming majority of the guns in the US. Military grade weapons only a small fraction.
The main point that I am trying to make is that if you want to fend off an invader or a dictator, liberal laws regarding private gun ownership is, most likely, not a decisive factor (it may have been different in the 18th century, but that’s not really relevant now). You need personnel with military training, military equipment, and organisation. Only guns (let alone civilian guns) are simply not going to do it against a modern enemy, even in unconventional guerilla warfare. It takes military grade explosives. RPGs. Grenades. Mines. And, most importantly, people who know how to use them in a combat situation.
There is much to be said about the consequences of US firearms legislation, but that is somewhat besides the point I am trying to make. It suffices to consider that, in 2010, 165 people were killed by gun violence in the UK. In Sweden 138. Switzerland 241. Germany 903. USA 31,672 (source: University of Sydney; http://www.gunpolicy.org). Sweden has 10 million inhabitants, Germany about 90. Do the maths yourself. It would require an almost genocidal police force, or a collectively suicidal population, to make up for those differences of magnitude.
Never forget the 6 gajillion.
As an American Jew, and a gun owner, the ADL do not speak for me and I am not in the slightest offended by discussion of gun control vis-a-vis Germany and WW2.
They lowered it even further with the Hitler Youth…
The “Holocaust” didn’t actually happen. Lots of people died, of course, as is inevitably the case in a six-year long world war, but organised industrial-scale gassing and cremation of millions was logistically impossible and has been forensically disproved.
The continued promulgation of the Holocaust story – and the criminalisation and ruination of those who seek to question it – is used as a stick with which to beat those who oppose mass immigration and political correctness, and additionally to protect Israel; both are central goals of the most powerful political/media lobby groups in the West.
That said, Carson’s comments make sense.
Is that similar to the way that the organized industrial scale killing of German and Japanese civilians (4m) by the Allies was also logistically impossible?
German and Japanese civilians were killed by massive aerial bombardment (fire and atomic). This is entirely different to the gas chamber stories. Simple examination of the capacity of the alleged gas chambers and crematoria, along with simple arithmetic, is enough to deduce that the claimed numbers are impossible.
This is merely the logistical impossibility, not even touching on the lack of documentation on the “Holocaust” by its alleged architects; lack of Fuhrer order on the subject; disturbing manner in which free speech on this particular historical issue, uniquely in the democratic West, is criminalised; etc.
I don’t know. Is it easier to kill civilians through imprecise measures from the air while being attacked by fighter planes and flack or by herding them into gas chambers?
Honestly, I wouldn’t expect an explicit order. That’s like signing your own confession.
Consider that the Ally officials were concerned that they themselves might stand trial for war crimes there every bit as heinous as the Holocaust.
It is not in doubt that the firebombing of Germany and the atomic bombing of Japan happened. The evidence is overwhelming, and if anyone wishes to question or examine it, they are free to do so.
There is significant doubt that the organised and industrial-scale gassing and cremation of millions happened. The capacity of the alleged chambers; the time frame in which it is alleged to have happened; the lack of the vast deposits of ash which would have been produced as a byproduct; the simple physical and arithmetic evidence does not add up.
Perhaps more salient is the criminalisation of the questioning of this story in much of the democratic West. Free speech is supposed to be a cornerstone of democracy. There is not a single other historical issue which is legally protected from examination. Why would they go so far as to subvert the very system of democracy, unless this issue was utterly central to their plans (that is to say, mass immigration and enforced political correctness for the West, and protection of the opposite for Israel)?
Oh, and the Nazis were sticklers for keeping efficient records (typical Germans). There were records found after the war for everything they ever did, but not a scrap about this supposed vast, industrial-scale plan to murder millions. Hmm.
The Germans didn’t expect to lose , so why would they bother to hide things? And was the idea of “war crimes” even a thing before 1945?
Actually Hitler expected to lose the war with the USSR. He said so in Mien Kampf. He was desperate to both avoid and end the war with Britain, hence the concessions he offered them. Germany simply did not have the resources to win a protracted war with the powerful military power on Earth. Attacking the USSR was a mad roll of the dice. Germany should have learned from the Finnish example.
If you consider that Germany was being crushed by the Allies, then yes, it would make sense for them to destroy the evidence. Yes there was such a thing as a war crime before 1945. Not only that, this process occurred over 12 years. Is that enough time to kill all these people?
The scale of the Final Solution was massive. Tens of thousands of facilities and 100s of thousands of people working to bring it about. And even outside of the camps the SS were marching into towns, lining people up and mowing them down.
In the USSR, the Nazis killed about 10 million civilians in about two years. Is it unfeasible that they could kill 6 million Jews with greater resources at their disposal?
Not unfeasible, but they would have done it exactly in the same way they killed the 10 million you refer to. Bombs and bullets, even beating or starvation, not gas chambers . No one denies they shot up to 1.5 million die hard communist jews in eastern europe. They question pointless lies about scientific impossibilities, people being made into soap and lampshades etc.
People being made into soap? Sounds like a plot from a Fantastic Four cartoon “and with my dreaded machine I’ll turn you all into statues made from soap! Muh hahahahahaha!”
You should do some reading on the Holohoax. I mean read right from the Jews mouth. For instance, the only place Holohoax hustlers claim Cyanide was used was in Auschwitz, and it was claimed that the form of Cyanide used was Zyklon B, which was actually cyanide mixed in Diatomaceous pellets and was used for the de-lousing of railroad cars.The impossible facts related to using Zyklon B for mass execution are well documented. I am willing to bet that you and all other true believers have never even looked into the Holohoax question. Read some of the absolute ridiculous claims made by that mentally ill freak Eli Weasel, or some of the absurd testimony of some of the alleged survivors in the Ernst Zundel trial.
Could the Germans have done away with 6 million Jews? Yes. The question is did they; that answer is no. After the collapse of the Soviet Union records were released that dramatically changed the six million story. Jews have claimed that 4.5 million of the 6 were killed in Auschwitz impossibly by Zyklon B. Camp records from the Soviet Archive show that at most 1.5 million died from various reasons and they were not all Jews. In fact the camp memorial states 1.5 million Jews, Gypsies and political dissenters died here (I’m paraphrasing). So, at least 3 million alleged Jewish victims came out of the 6 million story, probably much more. In fact they were claiming the same bullshit story of 6 million dead Jews after the First World War. It all has to do with them trying to bullshit their God Yahweh.
Communist Jews like Lazar Kaganonovich systematically starved to death 5 million Ukrainians.
Actually, the “Holocaust” (which is to say, the alleged organised programme of industrial-scale gassing and cremation) is acknowledged only to have begun in 1942, after the Wannsee Conference at which it was allegedly planned (but for which, surprise, surprise, no written evidence has ever been found), and was over by the end of 1944.
So, we are talking about millions of gassings and cremations in a small number of camps – not “tens of thousands, as you say: there were only a handful of so-called “death camps” – over a period of, say, 1000 days.
Looking at the size of the alleged gas chambers and crematoria; the time required for upkeep and maintenance, and necessary downtime; their use for other activities (eg delousing clothes and sheets), it is simply mathematically unfeasible for them to have been used to kill the numbers alleged.
You mention shootings of Jews in the East: yes, these certainly happened, many of them carried out not by the Nazis but by local people of their own accord. But then in a time of extreme violence and chaos like this, all kinds of feuds and scores were settled violently.
The “Holocaust”, a story which has been expertly and profitably marketed for several decades, is based not around shootings, but around the idea of organised mass gassings and cremations. And the evidence for this is dubious, to say the least, hence the need to silence anyone who seeks to question it.
As to there being such a thing as a war crime before 1945, there had been very few prosecutions, and it is unlikely that the German leadership considered it much at all. The whole idea of war crimes prosecutions came about as a result of the Nuremberg Trials, the creation of the UN, etc, all of them after 1945.
The infrastructure was being put in place from 1933 onwards. Obviously this would make it easier for the Nazis to murder millions of people on an industrial scale not that it seems they needed it given they slaughtered a greater number of soviet civilians in a shorter period of time with conventional means.
The first formal statement on war crimes was the Hague Convention of 1899. So yes, the Nazis knew what a war crime was and we also know they destroyed evidence of war crimes.
As for the idea that this was invention for the purpose of hanging Nazi leaders, why? If not this crime there were plenty of other war crimes to hang them for.
In summary then, the concept of war crime existed at this time and the Nazis had the means and motive to carry out the crime. Let’s not leave out all of the witness statements. I’m not sure what is left to discuss.
We know they killed about 11 million people in these camps. I don’t agree with the Jew focus but 3 million or 6 million is really just a trivial argument over details.
No need to be a dick.
Don’t be so sensitive.
The argument is always in the details.
As I’ve already explained to you, the killings in the Soviet Union were carried out by bombs and guns. These killings are not in doubt. It is the existence of the organised program of mass gassing and cremation which is in doubt.
As you said, the Nazis did not attempt to hide the mass killings by conventional means in the Soviet Union. This demonstrates that they had the capacity to kill huge numbers by conventional means, and that they didn’t care who knew about it.
Why, then, would they bother to create a vast, elaborate programme of gassing millions, which was simultaneously hidden so well that nobody knew anything about it until years after the war? If they intended to kill these people, why not just kill them the same way they successfully killed so many in the Soviet Union?
Why go to such great trouble when the conventional solution was right at hand? Clearly they weren’t worried about any potential “war crimes” trials (in as far as these existed pre-1945) as they had openly killed millions in the Soviet Union; why try so hard to hide some more killings?
The “gas chamber” story makes no sense, either logically (see above) or logistically (see my earlier posts).
Where it does make sense, is in its use as a tool which which to undermine resistance to mass third world immigration and enforced political correctness in Western countries. This is why it has become an article of faith among those who control the West’s political-media establishment, and why the penalty for those who openly dissent is similar to the penalty for those in Mecca who openly dissent from the similar religious superstitions in that part of the world.
Oh, and as for “witness statements”, I’m sure you could find witnesses to any number of fantastic stories, particularly if they were incentivised to tell them.
No it isn’t.
Don’t be so defensive.
I did not say that the Nazis did not attempt to hide the mass killings by conventional means. Don’t put words in my mouth. As for whether they cared about who knew about it, that is your assumption.
Why create a vast elaborate programme? One exists in the United States. Its called the execution of criminals. What do they have there? Is some states, a gas chamber. Why a gas chamber? Because very few people can handle killing someone in cold blood. Turn it into mass production line where the “killer” is far removed from the killing and psychologically it is demonstrably different. How did the Allied pilots feel about murdering German and Japanese women and children? Well if you can’t see the people you are blowing to bits its easier to rationalise. The Allies did exactly the same thing as the Germans but yet they perceive themselves as heroes.
Really it is your claim that the “gas chamber” story makes no sense. I have demonstrated here that the logic behind gas chambers is sound and logistically… Well logistically an invasion of the USSR by Germany was madness but they carried it out anyway. Next to that, funnelling people into gas chambers is easy.
Your comparison of the “gas chamber Holocaust” theory, and the execution of murderers in the USA, is so ridiculous as to raise questions over your seriousness in this debate.
Firstly, executions in the US are not a “vast elaborate program”: they are very rare, and only occur after decades of legal procedures; this is the complete opposite of the gas chamber Holocaust theory of relatively swift extrajudicial mass killing of millions.
Secondly, most US executions are not carried out in gas chambers, thus rendering moot your argument that “very few people can handle killing someone in cold blood”. And this argument is rendered even more ridiculous by conditions in the Second World War, in which mass killings in cold blood by Nazis, Soviets, partisans, and everyone in between, were happening left, right and centre in the Soviet Union.
Your claim is that the very same German war machine which had wreaked such havoc, death and destruction on their perceived enemies in the Soviet Union, were such a bunch of sensitive milksops that they couldn’t do the same to their perceived enemies in Germany and Poland; instead, they had to engineer an incredibly complex and wasteful system – in complete and utter secrecy – in order to kill them in an extraordinarily difficult and inefficient way compared to the simple bullets and bombs they had used against the Soviets.
To say that this “gas chamber Holocaust” is logically and logistically “unsound” is an understatement of epic proportions. It is akin to saying that challenging a hungry lion in unarmed combat would be “unwise”.
It is, put simply, bollocks.
You missed the point. I was explaining why gas chambers were used. They were used to get around the difficulty of convincing a decent man to coldbloodedly murder women and children.
Convincing men to kill other men in battle has long been an issue for armies. It is not natural to kill another person who has done nothing to you. Militaries use all kinds of techniques to convince men to kill. The Zulus used drugs and witchcraft to convince their soldiers to kill. A gas chamber, where the killer is divorced from the victim is a way to get around this problem.
In the rest of your post you seem to be arguing with strawmen. Easier to kill a strawman than a real man I suppose…
Wrong again. As I’ve explained several times by now, there were many cold blooded mass killings by Nazi troops in the Soviet Union.
Your thinking is based in the present-day soft, civilised West. By the years 1942-44, when the “gas chamber Holocaust” is alleged to have happened, Europe/USSR had been so utterly brutalised, with so much bloodshed, the idea that the Nazis had to (or even had the resources to) create a vast, entirely secret, organised gassing/cremation program for millions, because their soldiers were too weepy to kill Jews en masse, is ridiculous.
The reality, of course, is that there was no such “extermination” program. If the Nazis had wanted to exterminate all Jews, they would have rounded them up and shot them, like they did with so many others.
The vast (and seemingly growing) number of “survivors” is yet more evidence of this. If there had been a serious, protracted effort over 2-3 years to exterminate all Jews in German-controlled territory, they would all have been exterminated. The astonishing efficiency of the Nazis would have seen to this. But there wasn’t, so they weren’t.
Logically and logistically, it makes no sense. Which is why they have to imprison and destroy anyone who says so.
It’s well documented, the issues with convincing soldiers to kill, and the methods used to get around this.
If you think shooting a crying woman and her children, pleading for their lives is easy, you try it and get back to me.
If you’ve been in a brutal war for several years, during which you have seen and felt suffering and carnage that modern-day internet warriors couldn’t imagine, and have thus become desensitized to violence; and if you have been told ceaselessly for years by your government (with significant supporting evidence) that the Jews are the people who engineered that suffering and carnage; then yes, I’m confident that you could find people to shoot large numbers of Jews.
The “gas chamber” story is logically and logistically impossible.
Or maybe if you weren’t a complete idiot and didn’t believe everything the government that you didn’t vote for told you, you’d be less apt to shoot a defenseless woman in the face.
Hence the gas chambers.
Next you’ll tell me the Lunar Landings didn’t happen.
true – but read Bloodlands and you’ll see far more were killed in this way.
true
Please stop repeating the same weak arguments. World War Two was incredibly brutal and bloody, with innocents massacred and suffering of the like a sedentary keyboard warrior like you couldn’t possibly imagine. Vast numbers of people were executed; killing became second nature to millions. Killing Jews would be no different: indeed, many Germans would be happier to do this than killing Gentiles, given the significant role the Jews played in the anti-German effort, before and during the war.
You need not reply with more of the same, but only when you have new evidence of the logical or logistical possibility of the “gas chamber” holocaust (so never).
Keyboard warrior what? Stop being defensive.
Its important for you to believe that this didn’t happen because you have an emotional attachment to Nazis and an irrational hatred of Jews. You need to rationalise this to yourself. I don’t need new evidence. There is plenty of old evidence backing this up.
Hell, it is documented that even the US Army struggled to convince its troops to kill troops on the other side who were trying to kill them! So imagine ordering these same troops to kill innocent women and children!
Sure you will find a certain number of psychos who wouldn’t have a problem. But they will meet resistance from the majority of those that do.
Logistical possibility? How much livestock do we slaughter in Europe a year? Next to that, slaughter a few million humans is easy.
*sigh*….”emotional”…..”irrational hatred”….you’ve lost the plot (if you ever had it in the first place). You’ve failed to answer any of the relevant points, and have turned to obfuscation and changing the subject. No surprise – you’ve been conditioned to do so from childhood by the media.
Read up on the massacres that occurred in Eastern Europe and the USSR during WW2. Everyone was at it: Germans, Russians, partisans, gunning down anything that moved; soldier, woman, children, elderly, you name it. Your soft sofa-dwelling mindset clearly can’t adjust to such a reality. Which is just how the media-political elite like it.
With any luck you won’t be around when something similar happens in the West in decades to come thanks to mass immigration. I don’t think you’d be well prepared.
They’ve all been answered mate, exhaustively. You just have a peculiar fascination with the Nazis.
Whether “everyone was at it” is not in doubt and is not being debated. We are talking about whether the event known as the Holocaust happened. Having reviewed the literature, it is clear to me that it did and it is only apologists for Nazis (such as yourself) who argue otherwise. We have
documentary evidence, innumerable witness statements, physical evidence, and we have a clear rationale and motive as to why and logistically it was feasible.
The media has nothing to do with how I form my views. I have no special bias towards Jews or anyone else. We are arguing facts here and it is a historical fact that the Holocaust happened.
“We have documentary evidence” – no, actually that’s exactly what we don’t have. No Fuhrer order, no written evidence of anything, which is why they had to cook up this ludicrous story that it was all a super-secrety secret which nobody knew anything about; a vast, organised plan about which nobody ever wrote anything down. Hmm.
“innumerable witness statements” – ah yes, the witnesses, the number of whom grows with each passing year. Witnesses to what, exactly? Surely the only “victims” who “witnessed” one of these super-secrety secret “gas chambers” wouldn’t have been around for much longer. And heaven forbid that people would make up stories (or add their names to someone else’s) in order to benefit themselves and their people. Nah, that’d never happen.
“physical evidence” – er, what physical evidence? Ash deposits? Please tell. You may have cracked open a 70 year mystery!
“a clear rationale and motive as to why and logistically…” – I’ve already debunked this point on more than one occasion, so I’ll refer you to my earlier posts on the lack of logical or logistical soundness of this argument. Which you have supported, whether you understand it or not, with your own words….
“Whether “everyone was at it” is not in doubt” – Good, so you accept that 1942-44 Europe was a place of unimaginable horror and violence, with massacres of innocents being carried out left, right and centre. And yet you cling to the silly belief that, rather than simply use similar methods to carry out killings, the Germans went to the absurd and wasteful length of creating a vast, organised, industrial (yet somehow entirely secret, with nothing whatsoever written down) infrastructure to obtain the same ends.
“Having reviewed the literature…” – clearly not the literature by David Irving, who is acknowledged as the leading expert on the German side of World War Two. Ah, I hear you shriek, David Irving is a horrid evil Nazi! And how do you know that? Because the media told you so.
“The media has nothing to do with how I form my views” – Er, see above.
Do you think the persecution, destruction and imprisonment of David Irving and others who question the “gas chambers” (and the opposite, lucrative and lavish doling out of rewards to those who toe the line) might have an effect on what line is taken by most of the literature on this subject?
I am not so sure. If this is the case, why bother to disarm the Jews in the first place? Not only that, once the Jews did cotton on to what was happening (at first they thought they were simply being forcibly migrated – i.e. not fatal) they began violently resisting, particularly in Poland where Hitler couldn’t disarm Jews. These resisters caused significant trouble. Imagine how much trouble they would have caused if all of them were armed?
No actually it is the opposite, So many Jews were killed in Eastern Europe BECAUSE they were resisting. And they weren’t “resisting” so much as in a death struggle with the Nazis to control Eastern Europe. The Nazis killed by firing squad up to 1.5 million jews in Eastern Europe and the soviet union precisely because they were Communist resistors. There were No gas chambers. In reality and scientific plausibility. Anyone looking to kill mass amounts of people at the time would shoot and bury them…..not gas and cremate them. Which is exactly what they did. So where are the bodies? given what we are told/shown about the facilities at places like Auschwitz, number of gas chambers and crematoria, as well as the numbers killed, the bodies of millions, as we are told died in the camps, would still be burning today……
Being killed for “resisting”? Is that like how the police accusing you of “resisting” before kicking your head in?
All of which have caused gun owners to come together in recognition of a common cause over the last 2 decades. We were a disorganized lot prior to the 1990’s, now we’re rather well organized and seem to be showing up to events where the Federal government is overstepping its boundaries. Armed.
Oh shit, you’re completely right! I totally forgot about the rights of the illegal immigrant criminals! How could I be so bigoted, insensitive, and ignorant?! Time for some self-flagellation to atone for my sins against the PC.
the real holocaust was done by bolshevik jews who murdered tens of millions of christians in russia
Jews for the preservation of firearms recognizes that you do not let wolves control what should protect its flock. It is not a matter of if the Jews in WW2 could have saved 6 million if they were armed, the fact is there was NO DEBATE about what they could do when they were COMPLETELY disarmed. Its not just Hitler, Over 30 years, Stalin 100 million dead, Pol Pot 50 million dead. Whitewashed numbers for these monsters put the totals at much less but any sheep, Hitler was a lightweight at 6 million people exterminated. Anyone who studies even a small bit of history will read gun control/banning weapons ALWAYS precedes a holocaust. Anytime you see a liberal or socialist / communist claiming taking guns is a good idea, you only need to look to history to prove otherwise. Gun free zones are killing fields when the libs will wake up out of their utopia is anyones guess. Might be when they are being led to the concentration camps or or the victims of violence themselves. “A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged”…..
Better yet don’t be a minority group. When the majority hate a tiny minority they have to leave or else because war is ultimately a number game. If Jews want to be part of “never again” then they should be in Israel as a powerful majority.
JPFO? I am a life member.
Well, does not this just underscore the point that you need more than a handgun (or a box-cutter!) to do any real harm against a well-protected enemy?
Good article showing what happens when you cannot fight back. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2091670/Hitler-Stalin-The-murderous-regimes-world.html
It’s the intention to kill or murder that’s important not the weapons used. If the Jews in i1930s Germany had guns would it have changed anything? I suspect not, Goebbels would have used it as propaganda to say they were resisting the new Aryan State, so it would have changed nothing, armed or otherwise.
Wars aren’t prevented because the other side has weaponry.
Ben could have phrased it into a better question or two. “Was Hitler/Stalin correct implementing gun control laws at targted German/Soviet citizens?” Despite the answer, “What was the purpose of disarming those groups?” That answer eveyone knows.
The 2nd Amendment finds its origin in the British Constitution following the execution of King George III for treason, and it certainly makes a better argument against gun control. King George had disarmed the Protestants to arm the Catholics against them. The actual historical interpretation is simply that the right to bear arms is to protect against the steady encroachment of a tyrannical government.
Hitler’s regime was less dictatorial than ANY democracy today.
and everything he did, was done openly.
just because the media covers up 99% of the horrific abuse, and literal rape of people’s rights, privacy, property and physical integrity, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
Hitler did what he could to ensure the tens of millions of whites that were murdered by Jews in Russia did NOT turn into another 20 million dead Germans by the hands of Jews.
unfortunately the Jewish puppet states, UK, Bolshevik Russia and US had other plans.
Here’s a much more deliberative take:
https://foac-pac.org/uploads/Polsby-Holocausts%20%26%20Gun%20Control.pdf
Also, this site is quite useful too:
http://jpfo.org/
American Revolution was against a colonial power ruling from overseas. Local government was on our side. Tyranny rules its home by indoctrination, not subjugation, which is near impossible to do by force even to an unarmed populace.
>six gorrilion jews died because there were only 214,000 of them that could have fought back…
It’s amazing how freely and naturally dishonesty flows from these people…