The Second Amendment in Historical Context

[ChumpDumper]

I agree with that. No way the modern military ever accepts orders to turn on the civilian population.

No way those orders get made in the first place.

[CosmicCowboy]

In my family we don't draft dodge and then get drunk, throw rocks at cops and firemen and burn down buildings. It wasn't a bunch of kumbaya circles. If I would have been drafted I would have gone. I don't just talk about honor.

I appreciate your honor in that.

I'm glad I didn't have to make that choice. I turned 18 in 1973 and had a mid level draft number but didn't get called. I remember watching the TV watching those suckers pull the numbers.

I'm pretty sure the idiot that set fire to the ROTC building didn't get shot and the people that got shot probably had nothing to do with the fire. It was all ed up.

That being said I have no problem with the guys that said this and went to Canada in 1968.

That war was even more ed up than Afghanistan and it wasn't being fought by a volunteer army.

[CosmicCowboy]

No way those orders get made in the first place.

I never said they would be. That seems to be the theme of the liberals in this forum that if we conservative "gun nuts" get out of line the military would come in and us up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My family has a military tradition that goes back a century. My father and uncles served in Vietnam. I don't know how I would have not gone. If nothing else my father would have beaten the out of me all the way down to the recruiting station if I even would have tried. I don't think I would have tried though. I know what he went through and it's some scary though.

[CosmicCowboy]

In my family we don't draft dodge and then get drunk, throw rocks at cops and firemen and burn down buildings. It wasn't a bunch of kumbaya circles. If I would have been drafted I would have gone. I don't just talk about honor.

BTW, the honor of going to a third world country and killing and terrorizing the out of the civilians because you don't know who the the enemy is is debatable. They all become enemies.

[ChumpDumper]

I never said they would be. That seems to be the theme of the liberals in this forum that if we conservative "gun nuts" get out of line the military would come in and us up.

I don't think enough of them would do it at once to call actual troops in. There will probably be some new Ruby Ridges for us to start threads about though.

[CosmicCowboy]

My family has a military tradition that goes back a century. My father and uncles served in Vietnam. I don't know how I would have not gone. If nothing else my father would have beaten the out of me all the way down to the recruiting station if I even would have tried. I don't think I would have tried though. I know what he went through and it's some scary though.

Sweet! Are you volunteering for Mali? Those s need a good American ASS KICKING!

[DMC]

I bet if you asked Hitler if he thought that black people were genetically predisposed for deviant and violent behavior he would agree with that.

The Hitler card, folks.

Exposition:

In almost every heated debate, one side or the other—often both—plays the "Hitler card", that is, criticizes their opponent's position by associating it in some way with Adolf Hitler or the Nazis in general. This move is so common that it led Mike Godwin to develop the well-known "Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies": "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
No one wants to be associated with Nazism because it has been so thoroughly discredited in both theory and practise, and Hitler of course was its most famous exponent. So, linking an idea with Hitler or Nazism has become a common form of argument ascribing guilt by association.
Some instances of the Hitler card are factually incorrect, or even ludicrous, in ascribing ideas to Hitler or other Nazis that they did not hold. However, from a logical point of view, even if Hitler or other Nazis did accept an idea, this historical fact alone is insufficient to discredit it.
The Hitler Card is often combined with other fallacies, for instance, a weak analogy between an opponent and Hitler, or between the opposition political group and the Nazis. A related form of fallacious analogy is that which compares an opposition's actions with the Holocaust. This is a form of the ad Nazium fallacy because it casts the opposition in the role of Nazi. Not only do such arguments assign guilt by association, but the analogy used to link the opposition's actions with the Holocaust may be superficial or question-begging.
Other arguments ad Nazium combine guilt by association with a slippery slope. For instance, it is sometimes argued that the Nazis practised euthanasia, and therefore even voluntary forms of it are a first step onto a slippery slope leading to extermination camps. Like many slippery slope arguments, this is a way of avoiding arguing directly against voluntary euthanasia, instead claiming that it may indirectly lead to something admittedly bad.
Playing the Hitler Card demonizes opponents in debate by associating them with evil, and almost always derails the discussion. People naturally resent being associated with Nazism, and are usually angered. In this way, playing the Hitler Card can be an effective distraction in a debate, causing the opponent to lose track of the argument. However, when people become convinced by guilt by association arguments that their political opponents are not just mistaken, but are as evil as Nazis, reasoned debate can give way to violence. So, playing the Hitler Card is more than just a dirty trick in debate, it is often "fighting words".


It is generally accepted that whoever is the first to play the "Hitler card" has lost the argument as well as any trace of respect, as having to resort to comparing your adversary to the most infamous mass-murdering dictator in history generally means you've run out of better arguments. Thus, once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

[ChumpDumper]

He wasn't the first to bring up Hitler tbh.

Does this mean snc lost by default?

I don't think so.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

BTW, the honor of going to a third world country and killing and terrorizing the out of the civilians because you don't know who the the enemy is is debatable. They all become enemies.

That's not where the honor derives from. That is glory and what you are talking about certainly isn't glorious. It's about understanding that you have a duty and doing your duty the best that you can. The Vietnam War was even more ed up IMO than what we are doing now. At least --for the most part-- are acting against people that actually did attack us. We both know that Tonkin was a sham.

That being said, the threat of the Soviets was real and after we allowed them to basically annex Eastern Europe, I can understand the strategic goal. The execution was .

We still haven't figured out how to get the notion of the nation state to jive in the modern nuclear world.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm sorry but drawing a link between someone and the Nazi's on the basis of what are eugenics principles is not guilt by associations. When discussing Eugenics there are three basic figures that pop up. Of course Hitler every one gets that and if you are a bit more educated or well read you might say Galton and Shaw.

Saying there is a racial basis for a genetic link for deviant behavior is the foundation of eugenics. Its not like I am comparing the way someone walks to the SS. Its eugenics by definition.

[ElNono]

I never said they would be. That seems to be the theme of the liberals in this forum that if we conservative "gun nuts" get out of line the military would come in and us up.

You need to define what "out of line" is... If you're actively plotting on taking down government officials and the like, you bet your ass you're getting a visit. See that Alaska militia article I posted not too long ago.

And personally, I think peeps like that dude in Alaska is what I call a "gun nut"... it's not the guy that loves to shoot his guns for sport, or collects... it's the guy that starts buying and drifting into the conspiracy like government wants to take them away from him to enslave him. For some people there's a short line between seeing a perceived enemy and wanting to 'preemptively' hurt that perceived enemy.

[TSA]

I don't just talk about honor.

no , you just choose not to talk.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't just talk about honor.

Well, you most certainly don't show any honor here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, you most certainly don't show any honor here.

I have no duty to you. None whatsoever. Quite frankly I see you as the enemy. Stupidity is a blight.

[Wild Cobra]

I have no duty to you. None whatsoever. Quite frankly I see you as the enemy. Stupidity is a blight.

I think you mistake arrogance for honor.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think you mistake arrogance for honor.

I think you are trying to conflate things without basis. This is typical of your blight.

[Wild Cobra]

I think you are trying to conflate things without basis. This is typical of your blight.

If you think you have honor, it sure is a twisted variety.

[Winehole23]

from the facebook to me to you, a wrinkle that hadn't occurred to me:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890...Wpqi4.facebook

[Winehole23]

You need to define what "out of line" is... If you're actively plotting on taking down government officials and the like, you bet your ass you're getting a visit.

see: Occupy Wall Street. Mass protest gets a visit too, even in the absence of insurrectionary mens rea, despite being protected speech.

[Wild Cobra]

from the facebook to me to you, a wrinkle that hadn't occurred to me:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890...Wpqi4.facebook

I think I read this yesterday in someone else's post. May have merit.

[Winehole23]

whose post?

[Wild Cobra]

whose post?

I don't recall. I only know I read that same article already either yesterday, or the day before. I may have seen it elsewhere, but I think someone here posted it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's in the OP. It refers to the author who originally made the claims.

[Wild Cobra]

It's in the OP. It refers to the author who originally made the claims.

Ok, but that's not the article WH and I were speaking of.