Jews for Guns
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-08-2012, 11:17 AM
RE: Jews for Guns
(17-08-2012 11:04 AM)BnW Wrote:  Agree with Ghost on the blatant intolerance lately.

As to the matter at hands, all I can say is this: if only the French, Dutch, Norwegians, Poles, Slavs, etc. had guns and planes and tanks to defend themselves, things may have been different.

Oh wait a second - turns out they did have those things. And the Nazi's rolled right over all of them.

Of all the gun advocacy arguments I've ever seen, this one is probably the saddest and most disturbing. The implication that the Jews failed to defend themselves, the implied commentary that they somehow allowed this to happen and bear some responsibility here, is just disgusting. The fact of the matter is that even in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising the Germans were held back for ~30 days and then they finally came in and murdered just about everyone, exactly as they originally planned to do. The idea that if only civilians had guns they could have fought off the German war machine that was comprised of a professional army with an air force and artillery isn't just a pipe dream, it's complete and total nonsense. The only reason the the Germans didn't just level the Warsaw Ghetto right off was because having to do that would have been an embarrassment. But, you can be assured if this started to be a recurring problem with the Jews they would have treated them the way they treated so many other partisan groups - savagely and without remorse.

It would have been great if more of the Jews were armed and they could have killed more of these bastards when they showed up, but even if they had, the final impact of what the Nazi's did would not have been changed even one marginal bit. Given how they sliced through the armies of all the countries I mentioned above, as well as the Russian and British armies, how anyone can suggest otherwise is beyond me. The mistake Hiltler made was opening up a two front war. But for that (and perhaps declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor), Hitler would have succeeded in enacting his syphilis ridden dreams and conquered Europe. A handful of Jewish civilians with guns was not going to make a dent in that plan. The very notion of it is both preposterous and an insult to all the people who Hilter murdered.

Expand all of the above into a situation in the USA. Firstly, with a presidency and a separate bicameral legislative branch, I'd be intrigued to know how any "tyrant" could threaten citizens of the USA. Secondly, their combined efforts would mean jack shit, if this supposed tyrant could actually convince the military to kill US citizens en masse.

It is all fairytale bullshit, held up as an excuse for gun-lovers to keep loving their guns.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Red Celt's post
17-08-2012, 11:33 AM
RE: Jews for Guns
(17-08-2012 11:04 AM)BnW Wrote:  Of all the gun advocacy arguments I've ever seen, this one is probably the saddest and most disturbing. The implication that the Jews failed to defend themselves, the implied commentary that they somehow allowed this to happen and bear some responsibility here, is just disgusting.

I don't see this point made in the article, and I don't see him claiming that Hitler would have been derailed in general. His point seems to be that access to guns would at minimum have raised the cost ($, lives, time) for the Nazis, and possibly have resulted in the ghetto inhabitants just being left in the ghettos, rather than moved to camps. It seems like a stretch to me, which is what made the article interesting and why I posted it, but I don't see the author blaming the jews for inaction. I don't think the JewishJournal would have published it if it was anti-semitic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2012, 12:26 PM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2012 12:41 PM by Thomas.)
RE: Jews for Guns
...and here's the real problem:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekin...wanted=all

Note in this article Justice Breyer is reading studies on gun safety pros and cons. If you don't see the problem here let me explain it to you.

Breyer is a Supreme Court Justice, not a Legislator. His JOB is to rule on gun laws as constitutional or not. He has no business as a Supreme Court Judge making rulings on what he thinks "should be the law". I don't want the supreme court writing laws. They are a 9 member, non-elected, appointed for life panel that just rules on the constitutionality of legislature and the executive branch. That's it.

The problem with ALL gun debates is that crime statistics are ALL cooked. Local police Chiefs are paid to reduce crime. When they can't they just fudge the numbers.

Detroit is a great example: They cut homicide rates in half in the early 90s by simply relabeling them. Create a new category like "Death by some reason we don't know for sure" and there you go. Solved that problem. The "Suicide death by gun, but with no gun present" category I believe was in play for Detroit. There population has reduced by 50% over the last 20 years. Some parts look like a post-nuclear war zone. Was it because Detroit has weak gun laws?

BTW, you never support your case for disarming the citizen by calling anyone who wants to own a gun a "Gun Nut". You just strengthen their resolve. I own no guns, but fully support the right of others to do so. The solution to violence in society is much more complicated than just gathering up all the guns.

The human intellect can be described like a container that you would pour water into. The mind can only grasp so much as the container can only hold so much water. What we do is when our mind faces an overpowering complex problem we simplify the complex into something we can understand, which is inadequate to understand the true problem. We then develop a simple solution (ban all guns) which has nothing to do with the root cause. We also see this in economics, my field of study. Keynesian theory still survives because no one has realized that you can't describe an economy with 4 variables and then write a prescription to fix it when it breaks. "Sounds and feels good" doesn't work. Banning guns sounds good. Feels like we're doing something to address the problem. Where is the empirical data showing strict gun control reduces crime or increases crime? It doesn't exist, because nothing exists in a vacuum. Every society is different. Every time period is different. False correlation is more probable than not.

Linear thinking, A causes B so get rid of A and you get rid if B. Got rid of A, but B is still around. Well we're not going back because it was still the right thing to do to get rid of A. Remember alcohol prohibition? How did that work out? Where are we with the war on drugs? Banning guns in the US will most likely result in the same type of market reaction. We will simply drive the price of guns up, which will create an industry for the trafficking of illegal guns into the US and we'll have home grown gunsmiths making them in their basements. We'll throw millions of dollars of resources at stopping the illegal trafficking. We will reduce the number of good sane people who own guns, but if you're of the ilk that no good sane person would ever own a gun to start with then you're not engaged in rational debate.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2012, 12:39 PM
RE: Jews for Guns
(17-08-2012 12:26 PM)Thomas Wrote:  BTW, you never support your case for disarming the citizen by calling anyone who wants to own a gun a "Gun Nut". You just strengthen their resolve.

Speaking for myself, I use terms like [ideology] nut when they are clearly beyond all attempts at reason and rationale. I do likewise with theists. If you have clear, compelling reason and logic that is contrary to their ideology, yet they cling to that ideology regardless... they are a nut.

And that's one of the less acerbic phrases that I use. Dodgy

Oh, and you can liken the USA to other countries that maintain strict gun controls; considering the populations of those countries provided the majority of the people that inhabit the USA. Other than that, if you refuse change because, well, it would be too awkward and difficult to implement, then I'm glad that you didn't have any influence on the abolitionist movement.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Red Celt's post
17-08-2012, 01:36 PM
Jews for Guns
The movie Red Dawn is proof for why a populace needs guns.

Wolverines!!!

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2012, 01:51 PM
RE: Jews for Guns
(17-08-2012 11:33 AM)Jeff Wrote:  
(17-08-2012 11:04 AM)BnW Wrote:  Of all the gun advocacy arguments I've ever seen, this one is probably the saddest and most disturbing. The implication that the Jews failed to defend themselves, the implied commentary that they somehow allowed this to happen and bear some responsibility here, is just disgusting.

I don't see this point made in the article, and I don't see him claiming that Hitler would have been derailed in general. His point seems to be that access to guns would at minimum have raised the cost ($, lives, time) for the Nazis, and possibly have resulted in the ghetto inhabitants just being left in the ghettos, rather than moved to camps. It seems like a stretch to me, which is what made the article interesting and why I posted it, but I don't see the author blaming the jews for inaction. I don't think the JewishJournal would have published it if it was anti-semitic.

I didn't say it was anti-Semitic, I said it was insulting. It was. He doesn't actually say it (because he couldn't ever actually say it) but he implies that the Jews that were murdered just walked off like lambs to slaughter, like they had a chance to change their fate.

The problem with articles and arguments like those presented here is that it is impossible to ever really prove anything. History is what it is and no one knows exactly how things would have played out if circumstances were different. This author assumes it most likely Jews could have stemmed the flow of blood if they had been able to shoot back. When I look at the history, though, I think otherwise. I think Hitler would still have killed 6 million Jews. My reasoning is what I said above: if trained, professional armies backed with air support, tanks, etc. could not stop the German Blitzkrieg, any argument that a handful of civilians without proper training were going to mount a sustained defense against the Germans is highly dubious. And, his Warsaw Ghetto example doesn't really hold up because it was the exception, not the rule. If the rule had been that Jews were taking up arms and fighting back, then Hitler would have treated them as opposing soldiers and sent military troops in with armor and air support and wiped them out. Would it have cost him more troops to do it this way? Probably. The one point the author makes that I did agree with was this one:

And, vitally important, even had the number of Jews murdered been near 6 million (which I doubt), not all ways of dying are equal. There is a world of difference between being gassed or shot to death while standing naked beside the mass grave you were forced to dig and getting killed while shooting a Nazi.

Given the choices, I know which way I'd prefer to die. But, I'm dead either way.

The author is obviously assuming that Hitler would not have been willing to incur additional loss of troops to carry out his mad plans. Again, it is impossible to know exactly what would have happened but when you consider the evidence; that when the war was lost Hitler committed men and resources to finish exterminating the Jews they had captive, that the extermination of Jews took precedence over the onslaught of the Russians as they advanced westward, it seems unlikely that he would have backed down from his genocidal plan. He most likely would have just had planes come and drop bombs on them, and tanks run through the ruins, and left the SS there to shoot anyone who stuck their heads out for food.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: