Posted on 10/08/2015 5:11:14 PM PDT by markomalley
Ben Carson said Thursday that Adolph Hitler’s mass murder of Jews “would have been greatly diminished” if German citizens had not been disarmed by the Nazi regime.
The comment, which came during an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, was similar to arguments Carson made following last week’s mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., in which he defended the Second Amendment and suggested that the victims should have fought the gunman.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Unfortunately we don’t know for sure as few were distributed.
No, the problem is the s/he's apparently European...And we can't really hold those people to the same standards, at least not right away. They lack perspective.
The charitable thing to do is try and educate them a bit.
That’s a hard argument to make - since what really would have been required is a willingness to shoot uniformed government agents in the head. A much more difficult proposition for any “respectable” citizen.
You also have to take into consideration, however, that the French inflicted nearly 30,000 KIA and 100,000+ plus WIA on the German army, while the Warsaw Ghetto Partisans inflicted about 17 KIA and 100-ish wounded.
I’ve read some of your give and take with others on this thread regarding your criticism of Carson’s point and I think you’ve missed his point completely. What Carson is saying is that the tyranny of Nazism would never have grown to be able to seize the reins of government and to terrorize civilians in the streets if people were allowed to own guns. No one with a decent knowledge of WWII history believes that the Jews would have or could have fought the Wehrmacht with small arms if they had been legal. The point is they would have had a much better chance of stopping Hitler from seizing control of the civilian government and, consequently, the military, which gave him the power to completely subdue populations in Germany and her conquests.
Carson’s point dovetails with the reason we have a Second Amendment here: to prevent politicians from setting up a tyrannical regime. American familiarity with firearms also did good service in both WWI and WWII when they came to bail out England and France. The doughboys knew how to shoot.
I don’t know where you get the notion that the Jews were pacifists in pre-war Europe. While it may be true that large parts of the Jewish population were not war-like people, they were not today’s liberal Jews. This is the point of people who cite the Warsaw Ghetto uprising: not to prove the Jews could have beaten the Wehrmacht, but to prove that, when given a chance to fight, they fought fiercely. Ie: they were not pacifists.
That’s not what he said. You should learn to read critically.
100% correct
Hello,
Thanks for your comments.
At this moment I can’t make more comments in this thread, it’s too heavy-duty for me as it was my Dad’s funeral earlier today.
I’m making this comment, because I don’t want people to think I’m being bad-mannered and ignoring them.
I hope people understand.
I expect to fight. Not as much of a fight as it used to be at my age. We have to be ahead of them this time.
I not only understand, but am sitting here with a box of ashes which are the remains of my mother in law who I cared for 24/7 and died last week.
Look within and up, the strength is there.
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.