Posted on 01/19/2013 4:14:27 PM PST by Army Air Corps
If the Warsaw Jews had heavier weapons and more ammo they would have held out.
If the Warsaw Jews had heavier weapons and more ammo they would have held out.
It wasn’t just Hitler or Germany.
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953 20 million dissidents unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911 Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917 one million five hundred thousand Armenians unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1938 Germany established gun control.
From 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1935 China established gun control.
From 1948 to 1952 20 million dissidents unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1964 Guatamala established gun control.
From 1964 to 1981 100 thousand Mayan Indians unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1970 Uganda established gun control.
From 1971 to 1979 300 thousand Christians unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1956 Cambodia established gun control.
From 1975 to 1979 one million educated Cambodians unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
56 million people unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century due to gun control.
Um, yes, it should.
I guess all neuroses need a name. LOL
Yep, the professor couldn’t even come up with an analogy that wasn’t completely wrong.
He has a degree. It says he’s smart. He feels compelled to share his awesomeness.
Only in the real world, FRiend. Not at a university.
Always back to the race card.
These people are pathetic.
Just as there is a "Godwin's Law" that states that whoever invokes Hitler to support their side of the debate loses the debate, there should be a similar debate law regarding race-baiting.
"Then they took our guns"
"Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long afterwards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily."
Obviously, 150 Million Americans are not falling for it. Too bad.
What book is that from?
Why shouldn't we question ourselves if that is the trend we are heading (more like, being herded into).
“The Gulag Archipelago “
“Well, that Hitler guy loved mass transit (especially trains) and they always ran on time, ya see.”
This is the kind of tripe that’s typical among the fascist-loving Marxists at Salon.
People who armed themselves in the Nazi occupied territories stood a greater chance of coming out of WW II alive than those who were shipped to camps.
Ssh, you’re using facts. Facts are confusing to statists.
Wanna bet that the degree was granted form a bastion of statist thought?
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Well, the article is correct as far as it goes, Hitler did loosen gun laws as compared to the Weimer Republic.
Jews, as less than 1% of the population couldn't have successfully resisted Hitler. The majority of German Jews fled Germany, but were unable to get out of Europe. On an individual level, perhaps an armed Jew could have found his way through eastern Europe to Israel, where he would have been safe. Or survived in the woods as some did. No matter to the author though.
It's worth noting Hitler's "liberalization" wasn't complete. As a non citizen, a Jew couldn't own a firearm, and permitting was done by the government, as was enforcement.
As a Brown Shirt or member of the Schutzstaffel, this law was made for you. For communist or even a Christian Democrat, gun ownership might have been much more problematical.
I found the last paragraph most instructive.
He continued: “Their assertion that they need these guns to protect themselves from the government — as supposedly the Jews would have done against the Hitler regime — means not only that they are innocent of any knowledge and understanding of the past, but also that they are consciously or not imbued with the type of fascist or Bolshevik thinking that they can turn against a democratically elected government, indeed turn their guns on it, just because they don’t like its policies, its ideology, or the color, race and origin of its leaders.”
Again, true as far as it goes, Jews couldn't have stopped Hitler. Leaving aside the authors specious implication that Hitler was democratically elected, he represented only a minority. Only supporters were widely armed thus able to disrupt the elections of 32 and 33. Gun rights were selective.
Would it be insensitive to mention that in California, a state where it's hard to get concealed carry permits, both antigun Senators have one. Or that here in Illinois where concealed carry doesn't exist, plenty of politicians carry. Sometimes they forget and get arrested trying to board airplanes. At one time Chicago aldermen could carry, don't know if that's still the case. And Chuck Schumer is reported to have a carry permit in NY, don't know if that's true.
I wouldn't compare the aforenamed to Nazis, but there's a similarity in the similarity of selective legislation.
And retired LEOs in NY want an exemption from the new magazine requirement. Want an exemption, don't retire, or support equal rights for all citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.