It doesn't matter - it's a red herring. Even if Hitler handed-out guns to the Jews, what differenece does it make to my Second Amendment rights? It doesn't. This is the way the Left works to distract and invalidate their opposition. The premise here being that "since the disarmament of the Jews (and the end result) is a reason why we should keep our guns, if that argument can be invalidated, we have to surrender our weapons." Bullshit. The Second stands on it's own. It is not dependent on whether or not we can make an argument for it. "...shall not be infringed." Period. It is important to remember this. It is fine to use illustrations to help teh less intelligent understand why we should and will keep our guns, but whether or not anybody is swayed by these examples has ZERO to do with the strength and validity of the right itself. We're keeping our guns. Molon Labe, bitches.
Advice on the futility of armed resistance to tyranny and genocide from a descendent of someone who needed to be "liberated" from a death camp. You just can't make this stuff up.
".......the truth is that for all Hitler's unquestionably evil acts, his firearms laws likely made no difference in Jews' very tenuous odds of survival."
And yet armed Jewish Partisans in the forests of Belorussia managed to save the lives of 1,236 Jews.
Being of Russian Jewish descent myself,the Beilski Partisans are some of my personal heroes.
How dare these leftist revisionists deny the rightful place in history to these brave souls who,against all odds,took up arms against evil and managed to save so many lives in doing so.
How dare they.
Then we have the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising,where doomed Jews at least managed to die with the dignity of making their murderers pay for their crimes with their own blood.
These people trying to deny the part that weapons control laws played in the disenfranchisement of the victims of Nazi Germany are almost as bad as those who deny the Holocaust ever occurred.
Its time they and their sick demand for a government monopoly on the use of force be accorded the same disdain.
I have the German gun laws as published in JFPO's fine "Gateway to Tyranny" and I cannot see where the statutes were loosened at any point. Granted, Hitler often did things such as the Holocaust "under the radar" (sound familiar?) so that his policy was not reflected in legal statutes, but Germany is a very rule-conscious country, then and now. It was always possible for Nazi party members to obtain firearms, but we are speaking of the general populace. In short, I think Geller and the good professor he quotes (in Chicago, no less) are both blowing smoke.
These revisionist authors are just another example of advocating for people to be victims. The Jews in Germany had no chance of winning, but armed, could have at least killed some of the thugs. For me it is simple; why should I go to the place where they shovel dirt in my face, for free? Why not kill as many as I can before it's my turn? That is precisely what I intend to do, revisionists be damned.
What so many people seem to overlook is the fact that the guns are simply one small part of the whole picture. Guns are the most effective means for self defense, obviously, but if the person does not have the will to use them, or even the rudimentary skill required, the gun is a paperweight.
From what I've read, there were few Jews with the will to resist - they walked to the edge of the pits and were murdered without a shred of resistance in most cases. Guns would not have helped them because they didn't have the will to fight, especially early in the game when it would have actually helped them.
When people are willing to fight to live and be free, they will use anything as a weapon, including their bare hands. Guns, knives, explosives, etc. are merely the extension of the will - just the tools, as we've always said.
Gun confiscation is the LAST act of the tyrants, not the first. Government "education" and propaganda, to produce a population of unresisting slaves - unwilling and unable to fight for their lives, comes first.
Self defense is the basic natural right of all living things. Nobody can "take away" that right. But we have to believe that and act on it ourselves. Nobody can give it to us either.
So, by this "analysis" we should take away, that #1-- Resistance is futile. #2-- That an unarmed segment of the populace would be better to remain that way, for fear of exacting an even more harsh punishment from their oppressors. #3-- That only a fool would extrapolate lessons of 20th Century mass-murder of citizens by their own governments to the modern and "enlightened" age.
When I read the rebuttal from Ken Jacobson, ADL's deputy national director, I was surprised that he did not assert a claim of "Antisemitism". That is their usual schtick.
By the very flawed logic of academicians like Harcourt, Gellately and Paulsson, the show their true lack of intellect when they shill for the anti-gun lobby with this type of pseudo-intellectual drivel. Their argument would be that, because more states are adopting concealed carry laws, and gun owners are a mere minority of the larger population and that we are dispersed throughout the 50 states, we should completely discount the ongoing and insidious attacks on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
These charlatans are quite cunning to wrap their anti-gun agenda in the cloak of "scholarly publications" based on "studious research". This is, of course, not the least bit surprising. Academia was long ago subverted by the leftist/Marxist agenda. To quote Bob Dylan, theirs is so much "useless and pointless knowledge".
To them I say, you may keep your studies (underwritten by your university) and books (published with the support of your institute of "higher learning"). I will keep my guns.
This is the most insane media garbage I've read since the bulk of the Newtown hysteria died down. Aside from what the others above me have already mentioned, under what circumstances are our own gun laws not either relaxed or unenforced on our own protected classes, namely police and non-whites? They're our version of the "right-wing" militias under Nazi Germany's control.
Furthermore, the "deregulation" cited in this article still leave laws that were obscenely strict. How ridiculous that this "expert" said the Nazi regime believed those loyal to them had a "right" to arms.
If this is the best they can do, they're grasping at straws.
What they say is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what they do or do not, and what we do or do not in response.
If all they do is publish papers to each other... let them.
If they send their hirelings to take our guns, shoot them. Then shoot the people who sent the hirelings.
End of story.
Don't make this any more complicated than it needs to be. They will argue the finer points of history and logic until they're blue in the face and you're tired of hearing it. Use Dutchman6's line: "If you try to take our guns we will kill you!" Odds are good their eyes will get big, their jaws will drop, and they will wander off to find someone easier to impress with their briliance and wit.
What was said in Nazi Germany's law books was one thing. What was PRACTICED was quite another. A friend who grew up under that regime said his father (who was not a Jew) couldn't get a permit - because he was not a "good German" meaning he was not a member of the Nazi Party. In fact you "couldn't be trusted" in any position of authority if you weren't a Party member. So his father had to hide his hunting rifle in an old hollow stump just to put meat on his family's table.
The analogy is correct, no matter what these liberal college professors say to the contrary. They weren't there, so they don't know.
15 comments:
It doesn't matter - it's a red herring. Even if Hitler handed-out guns to the Jews, what differenece does it make to my Second Amendment rights? It doesn't. This is the way the Left works to distract and invalidate their opposition. The premise here being that "since the disarmament of the Jews (and the end result) is a reason why we should keep our guns, if that argument can be invalidated, we have to surrender our weapons." Bullshit. The Second stands on it's own. It is not dependent on whether or not we can make an argument for it. "...shall not be infringed." Period. It is important to remember this. It is fine to use illustrations to help teh less intelligent understand why we should and will keep our guns, but whether or not anybody is swayed by these examples has ZERO to do with the strength and validity of the right itself. We're keeping our guns. Molon Labe, bitches.
Advice on the futility of armed resistance to tyranny and genocide from a descendent of someone who needed to be "liberated" from a death camp. You just can't make this stuff up.
".......the truth is that for all Hitler's unquestionably evil acts, his firearms laws likely made no difference in Jews' very tenuous odds of survival."
And yet armed Jewish Partisans in the forests of Belorussia managed to save the lives of 1,236 Jews.
Being of Russian Jewish descent myself,the Beilski Partisans are some of my personal heroes.
How dare these leftist revisionists deny the rightful place in history to these brave souls who,against all odds,took up arms against evil and managed to save so many lives in doing so.
How dare they.
Then we have the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising,where doomed Jews at least managed to die with the dignity of making their murderers pay for their crimes with their own blood.
These people trying to deny the part that weapons control laws played in the disenfranchisement of the victims of Nazi Germany are almost as bad as those who deny the Holocaust ever occurred.
Its time they and their sick demand for a government monopoly on the use of force be accorded the same disdain.
OMG, another "don't resist and maybe they won't hurt us" guy. Please!
I have the German gun laws as published in JFPO's fine "Gateway to Tyranny" and I cannot see where the statutes were loosened at any point. Granted, Hitler often did things such as the Holocaust "under the radar" (sound familiar?) so that his policy was not reflected in legal statutes, but Germany is a very rule-conscious country, then and now. It was always possible for Nazi party members to obtain firearms, but we are speaking of the general populace. In short, I think Geller and the good professor he quotes (in Chicago, no less) are both blowing smoke.
These revisionist authors are just another example of advocating for people to be victims. The Jews in Germany had no chance of winning, but armed, could have at least killed some of the thugs. For me it is simple; why should I go to the place where they shovel dirt in my face, for free? Why not kill as many as I can before it's my turn? That is precisely what I intend to do, revisionists be damned.
What so many people seem to overlook is the fact that the guns are simply one small part of the whole picture. Guns are the most effective means for self defense, obviously, but if the person does not have the will to use them, or even the rudimentary skill required, the gun is a paperweight.
From what I've read, there were few Jews with the will to resist - they walked to the edge of the pits and were murdered without a shred of resistance in most cases. Guns would not have helped them because they didn't have the will to fight, especially early in the game when it would have actually helped them.
When people are willing to fight to live and be free, they will use anything as a weapon, including their bare hands. Guns, knives, explosives, etc. are merely the extension of the will - just the tools, as we've always said.
Gun confiscation is the LAST act of the tyrants, not the first. Government "education" and propaganda, to produce a population of unresisting slaves - unwilling and unable to fight for their lives, comes first.
Self defense is the basic natural right of all living things. Nobody can "take away" that right. But we have to believe that and act on it ourselves. Nobody can give it to us either.
Live free or die.
So, by this "analysis" we should take away, that #1-- Resistance is futile. #2-- That an unarmed segment of the populace would be better to remain that way, for fear of exacting an even more harsh punishment from their oppressors.
#3-- That only a fool would extrapolate lessons of 20th Century mass-murder of citizens by their own governments to the modern and "enlightened" age.
When I read the rebuttal from Ken Jacobson, ADL's deputy national director, I was surprised that he did not assert a claim of "Antisemitism". That is their usual schtick.
By the very flawed logic of academicians like Harcourt, Gellately and Paulsson, the show their true lack of intellect when they shill for the anti-gun lobby with this type of pseudo-intellectual drivel. Their argument would be that, because more states are adopting concealed carry laws, and gun owners are a mere minority of the larger population and that we are dispersed throughout the 50 states, we should completely discount the ongoing and insidious attacks on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
These charlatans are quite cunning to wrap their anti-gun agenda in the cloak of "scholarly publications" based on "studious research". This is, of course, not the least bit surprising. Academia was long ago subverted by the leftist/Marxist agenda. To quote Bob Dylan, theirs is so much "useless and pointless knowledge".
To them I say, you may keep your studies (underwritten by your university) and books (published with the support of your institute of "higher learning"). I will keep my guns.
KPN3%
This is the most insane media garbage I've read since the bulk of the Newtown hysteria died down. Aside from what the others above me have already mentioned, under what circumstances are our own gun laws not either relaxed or unenforced on our own protected classes, namely police and non-whites? They're our version of the "right-wing" militias under Nazi Germany's control.
Furthermore, the "deregulation" cited in this article still leave laws that were obscenely strict. How ridiculous that this "expert" said the Nazi regime believed those loyal to them had a "right" to arms.
If this is the best they can do, they're grasping at straws.
Suggestion of the Day:
As a sub-text, post your #1 comment at the top of the blog.
"1. If someone comes to your door to take you away, because of who you are or what you think, shoot them..."
It was well-said, and I like to be reminded of it.
What they say is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what they do or do not, and what we do or do not in response.
If all they do is publish papers to each other... let them.
If they send their hirelings to take our guns, shoot them. Then shoot the people who sent the hirelings.
End of story.
Don't make this any more complicated than it needs to be. They will argue the finer points of history and logic until they're blue in the face and you're tired of hearing it. Use Dutchman6's line: "If you try to take our guns we will kill you!" Odds are good their eyes will get big, their jaws will drop, and they will wander off to find someone easier to impress with their briliance and wit.
And it's probably not worth mentioning again here, but everyone should read The Belgian Corporal.
http://www.examiner.com/article/dangers-of-gun-registration-the-belgian-corporal
What was said in Nazi Germany's law books was one thing. What was PRACTICED was quite another. A friend who grew up under that regime said his father (who was not a Jew) couldn't get a permit - because he was not a "good German" meaning he was not a member of the Nazi Party. In fact you "couldn't be trusted" in any position of authority if you weren't a Party member. So his father had to hide his hunting rifle in an old hollow stump just to put meat on his family's table.
The analogy is correct, no matter what these liberal college professors say to the contrary. They weren't there, so they don't know.
Dean Garrison asks, "Is it time to organize the Revolution?"
... and how will they rewrite history to hide their complicity in the precipitation of civil war?
Those few that are left ...
III
Post a Comment