Reply With Quote
The article is pretty succinct.
I can't see how anyone could claim Hitler disarmed his people after reading it.
you're justifying Hitler and wanting me to counter on an argument you didn't even make?
The article is pretty succinct.
I can't see how anyone could claim Hitler disarmed his people after reading it.
The National Socialists won the election legitimately. They didn't usurp. They just burned down the parliament once they had secured power.
Then stop reading liberal websites.
Took a trip to thesaurus.com huh
He's talking about removing weapons from the potential Russian insurgency after Germany invaded Russia you ing dolt. What the do you think the "subject" in "subject race" refers to. This has nothing to do with the right of German citizens to bear arms.
Same as above. Define opposition as it's used here.
And one more question for the history professor: do you think that the Iraqi insurgency should be disarmed? If disarmed, does that diminish the protections of the 2nd Amendment?
Because you said my list had no credibility because Hitler was in it. But Hitler, while he did apply gun control to certain minorities, especially jews, didn't really do such thing with the german population at large. His party actually did the opposite.
Now if what you're arguing is that Nazis could only come to power because the Weismar Republic had strict gun controls, that's revisionist history too...
I said I would. Again, was not meant to be anything personal.
You still don't know what the laws were. I don't understand how you think remaining ignorant somehow makes your Hitler platform valid.
No. Do you consider that word to be fancy?Took a trip to thesaurus.com huh
You should quote me, that shows everyone you're ignoring me.
Technically they are correct SnC. The Nazi's did not confiscate guns from German citizens.
The strict gun laws were actually passed by the Weimar Republic trying to disarm the Nazi's and the communists.
When the Nazi's came to power they made certain looser gun laws for "German Citizens" but redefined who was a German citizen. They just used the law against their enemies.
In 1838 they, however passed a law that specifically excluded JEWS as German citizens.
We all saw how that worked out.
When Obama signs an executive order disarming the Jews, I'll call into the Alex Jones show.
With reservation I just backed you up. GFY
Racist got
You're too sensitive. That wasn't even a dig at you.
You'll have to explain what was racist about my post.
You mean 1938. And that is true, the genocide of jews was abhorrent. It should also be said though, that at that point wehther they had guns or not was immaterial: the Nazis controlled a ruthless military, which was my point all along. Civilians, armed or not, jews or not, were no longer in control of the country.
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.
Yes, that was a typo. 1938 is correct. I didn't have my glasses on and missed it before I hit send. Thanks for the correction.
And maybe I am missing something, but our modern US military bears no resemblance to the german youth of 1938 who had grown up under the horrible economic conditions resulting from the mismanagement of the "victory" over the Axis in WWI. That was some ed up . You may call me naive but I don't think they would ever turn their guns on US citizens if ordered to. I still think they would turn their guns the other way.
I am old enough to remember Kent State. That was a cultural turning point in how people viewed the government, the military, and "military service" against US citizens.
. Sorry ElNono. I just remembered you aren't from here and probably had no idea what the I was referring to about Kent State. Late 1960's, kids peacefully protesting the Vietnam War, National Guard called out to "keep the peace" some poor national guardsman felt threatened, got too pissed off at the not so peaceful protest and ripped off a string.
That photo galvanized a nation and flipped political consensus to end the war.
Us old farts have a very dim view of domestic military intervention.
You are correct, and that's exactly why I'm saying it's not going to happen here.
And to say the Nazis were just a regular civilian party is also somewhat misleading. A lot of them, including Hitler, fought and grew up through WWI with a strong military background and a big sense of extreme nationalism. Weismar selling off half the country for american bailouts I'm sure angered a lot of them too.
That's why it's hard for me to classify them as a 'civilian' government that turned their guns on their own people. It had all the typical shades of a military uprising. Just my 2c.
Sure and the guardsman wouldn't have to have been there if they hadn't burnt down the ROTC building. That is typical of the generation. Don't mind that ed up we did: poor us. Look at the picture, doesnt she look upset?
I've read about it. Part of becoming an American (for me anyways) is studying the good and not so good events in history. Appreciate you taking the time to explain.. Sorry ElNono. I just remembered you aren't from here and probably had no idea what the I was referring to about Kent State. Late 1960's, kids peacefully protesting the Vietnam War, National Guard called out to "keep the peace" some poor national guardsman got too pissed off at the not so peaceful protest and ripped off a string.
That photo galvanized a nation and flipped political consensus to end the war.
Would things have changed as much if there had only been the Jackson State shootings?. Sorry ElNono. I just remembered you aren't from here and probably had no idea what the I was referring to about Kent State. Late 1960's, kids peacefully protesting the Vietnam War, National Guard called out to "keep the peace" some poor national guardsman got too pissed off at the not so peaceful protest and ripped off a string.
That photo galvanized a nation and flipped political consensus to end the war.
Whether troops fire on citizens might depend on the individuals involved on both sides. But I don't think we're anywhere near that at any rate.
Remember the book about John Adam's? Remember the story of the Boston Massacre and what Adams did? There are parallels to the Kent State shooting.
So Fuzzy Nuts would have volunteered to serve in Viet Nam in 1968?
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 agree with that. No way the modern military ever accepts orders to turn on the civilian population.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
