Republican Congressman suggests that the Jews could have prevented the Holocaust by being armed

[mikeymikec]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ol-alaska-don-young-nazis-armed-a8232721.html

http://www.tmz.com/2018/02/28/rep-don-young-guns-armed-jews-holocaust-alaska/

Yep, IMO Hitler certainly seemed like the type to say, "I would have deployed the might of the German army against the Jews as part of my life-long battle to wipe the buggers out, but you know, their guns scared me.", while engaging in WW2.

 

[HomerJS]

doubling down on stupid

 

[brycejones]

We need 300 million guns because Hitler. Got it.

 

[Moonbeam]

The obvious implication of this kind of thinking is that we could prevent a fascist takeover of this country by the Republican party if liberals would just buy guns and start shooting them. Before one rejects an idea out of hand as say stupid or brilliant, maybe one should examine it from different angles.

 

[IronWing]

The obvious implication of this kind of thinking is that we could prevent a fascist takeover of this country by the Republican party if liberals would just buy guns and start shooting them. Before one rejects an idea out of hand as say stupid or brilliant, maybe one should examine it from different angles.

Rooftop vs from behind parked car?

 

[Commodus]

Someone should make him watch a documentary on the Warsaw ghetto uprising with his eyelids taped open.

That's why I shake my head at gun zealots who insist they need semi-auto rifles in case there's a tyrannical US government. They forget that it's not enough to have decent guns -- even a WWII-era military has an overwhelming advantage in terms of firepower, numbers, training and organization. You know what happens if a modern homegrown militia fights the collective weight of the US military in this nightmare scenario, even if it could count hundreds of thousands of people among its ranks? Everyone in that militia dies or surrenders. Possibly within days.

The better solution is to improve the system of government to prevent tyrants, and create a culture where authoritarianism isn't tolerated. There's a certain irony to Trump supporters that way: they tout the 2nd Amendment as the key to freedom, but cheer on a President and party trying to undermine that freedom through attacks on the free press as well attempts to undercut checks and balances (through obstruction of justice, nepotism, and rigging elections through gerrymandering and voter ID laws). They're paradoxically encouraging the very scenario they're supposed to be against.

 

[thilanliyan]

They're paradoxically encouraging the very scenario they're supposedly against.

Thems are big words...elitist...

 

[snoopy7548]

I completely agree. Also, if the dinosaurs had guns they would have been able to shoot the asteroid that devastated earth into millions of tiny pieces. More guns in more hands solves pretty much everything, no matter how you look at it.

 

[zinfamous]

I completely agree. Also, if the dinosaurs had guns they would have been able to shoot the asteroid that devastated earth into millions of tiny pieces. More guns in more hands solves pretty much everything, no matter how you look at it.

I suspect that T Rex would have been really clumsy with those guns, and dilophosaurus would never have passed the mental health background check.

 

[Sunburn74]

I'm sad not only that he said that but that as per the article there was vocal support for his idiotic and racist theories.

 

[Moonbeam]

Thems are big words...elitist...

Yup, just creating what you fear......

 

[IronWing]

They're paradoxically encouraging the very scenario they're supposed to be against.

Another reason to buy guns! It's a win!

 

[Paratus]

I suspect that T Rex would have been really clumsy with those guns, and dilophosaurus would never have passed the mental health background check.

I believe T-Rex had powered armor to help with the targeting.

 

[Zorba]

Never mind, if the Jews had started shooting SS in 1936, public opinion would've turned even harder against them and the public would've demanded even harsher treatment. Its not like people actually knew what was going to happen, and even while the holocaust was going on most Germans didn't really know the full extent. Not only is this complete fantasyland, bs, it also assumes everyone knew in 1936 what the world learned in 1945.

Also nevermind, this was an army that took over the majority of Europe and pushed the British army into the English Channel. If only all those armies had guns...

 

[outriding]

I suspect that T Rex would have been really clumsy with those guns, and dilophosaurus would never have passed the mental health background check.

Duh. That is what bump stocks are for

So Trex's tiny arms can shoot

 

[interchange]

The obvious implication of this kind of thinking is that we could prevent a fascist takeover of this country by the Republican party if liberals would just buy guns and start shooting them. Before one rejects an idea out of hand as say stupid or brilliant, maybe one should examine it from different angles.

I think it's a fair argument to say that this is a founding principle of America. Of course, life expectancy back then wasn't so great. I think we as society need to affirmatively decide we've moved past that idea. It certainly seems impractical to imagine such civilian action happening today.

 

[Indus]

If he's paying for it, I'll take a few pistols, an AR-15 and a couple of thousand rounds.

 

[BoomerD]

Someone should make him watch a documentary on the Warsaw ghetto uprising with his eyelids taped open.

That's why I shake my head at gun zealots who insist they need semi-auto rifles in case there's a tyrannical US government. They forget that it's not enough to have decent guns -- even a WWII-era military has an overwhelming advantage in terms of firepower, numbers, training and organization. You know what happens if a modern homegrown militia fights the collective weight of the US military in this nightmare scenario, even if it could count hundreds of thousands of people among its ranks? Everyone in that militia dies or surrenders. Possibly within days.

The better solution is to improve the system of government to prevent tyrants, and create a culture where authoritarianism isn't tolerated. There's a certain irony to Trump supporters that way: they tout the 2nd Amendment as the key to freedom, but cheer on a President and party trying to undermine that freedom through attacks on the free press as well attempts to undercut checks and balances (through obstruction of justice, nepotism, and rigging elections through gerrymandering and voter ID laws). They're paradoxically encouraging the very scenario they're supposed to be against.

Nuh-uh! I saw Red Dawn! That small handful of armed patriots beat the Cuban army, all by themselves...with perseverance and their god-given guns.

 

[Genx87]

Someone should make him watch a documentary on the Warsaw ghetto uprising with his eyelids taped open.

That's why I shake my head at gun zealots who insist they need semi-auto rifles in case there's a tyrannical US government. They forget that it's not enough to have decent guns -- even a WWII-era military has an overwhelming advantage in terms of firepower, numbers, training and organization. You know what happens if a modern homegrown militia fights the collective weight of the US military in this nightmare scenario, even if it could count hundreds of thousands of people among its ranks? Everyone in that militia dies or surrenders. Possibly within days.

Like in Iraq? If this scenario were to happen people seem to be under a false pretense the entire US military would join in slaughtering US citizens to keep a tyrannical govt in power. As we have witnessed through countless revolutions\civil wars this is not the case. Our own civil war had west point graduates, men who were friends for life fighting against each other as they broke off from the US military. Syria, insurgencies are being lead by former Syrian military. Iraq, insurgencies lead by former Iraqi military. Even in the fall of dictatorships such as Romania, the Soviet Union, Libya. The military splintered and picked sides. And even within Nazi Germany. Many believe if Hitler was successfully killed at Smolensk in 42 it would had plunged Germany into a civil war. Pitting SS and loyal Wehrmacht units vs Wehrmacht and the leaders of the assassination. And this would had been at the height of German territorial gains.

And then one has to ask how hard what is left of the military will fight. We were unable to stop an insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have my doubts the military would fight harder at home killing their neighbors. But anything is possible.

I do not dismiss the collective right to own arms is not capable of toppling a tyrannical govt. It has happened so many times in the past that it is silly to believe a tyrannical US govt would somehow be immune where so many before it failed.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think it's a fair argument to say that this is a founding principle of America. Of course, life expectancy back then wasn't so great. I think we as society need to affirmatively decide we've moved past that idea. It certainly seems impractical to imagine such civilian action happening today.

Well, yeh, but it's an inner fantasy of every right wing gun freak in America. Watering the tree of Liberty & so forth. They all have their inner Bundyite. It's why having military firepower is important to them.

 

[woolfe9998]

Someone should make him watch a documentary on the Warsaw ghetto uprising with his eyelids taped open.

That's why I shake my head at gun zealots who insist they need semi-auto rifles in case there's a tyrannical US government. They forget that it's not enough to have decent guns -- even a WWII-era military has an overwhelming advantage in terms of firepower, numbers, training and organization. You know what happens if a modern homegrown militia fights the collective weight of the US military in this nightmare scenario, even if it could count hundreds of thousands of people among its ranks? Everyone in that militia dies or surrenders. Possibly within days.

The better solution is to improve the system of government to prevent tyrants, and create a culture where authoritarianism isn't tolerated. There's a certain irony to Trump supporters that way: they tout the 2nd Amendment as the key to freedom, but cheer on a President and party trying to undermine that freedom through attacks on the free press as well attempts to undercut checks and balances (through obstruction of justice, nepotism, and rigging elections through gerrymandering and voter ID laws). They're paradoxically encouraging the very scenario they're supposed to be against.

The Nazis also adhered to the doctrine of collective punishment. For example, when Reinhard Heydrich, number 2 man in the SS, was killed by Czech partisans in 1942, the Nazis destroyed two nearby Czech villages and slaughtered all their inhabitants.

When one Jew killed a German diplomat in Paris in 1938, the Nazis retaliated with a massive pogrom against the Jews aka Kristallnact.

Some Jews did fight but no one was going to prevent this genocide. The only thing which could have prevented it is if the allies had won the war 3 years earlier.

Whoever this Congressman is he's a clown. He needs to crack a history book or two before commenting on any historical topic.

 

[Thebobo]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ol-alaska-don-young-nazis-armed-a8232721.html

http://www.tmz.com/2018/02/28/rep-don-young-guns-armed-jews-holocaust-alaska/

Yep, IMO Hitler certainly seemed like the type to say, "I would have deployed the might of the German army against the Jews as part of my life-long battle to wipe the buggers out, but you know, their guns scared me.", while engaging in WW2.

Well lets see, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway and Western Poland all had guns and tanks and aircraft. Guess they weren't told that if they HAD guns they could of won. lol idiots

 

[Moonbeam]

I think it's a fair argument to say that this is a founding principle of America. Of course, life expectancy back then wasn't so great. I think we as society need to affirmatively decide we've moved past that idea. It certainly seems impractical to imagine such civilian action happening today.

I have a real conflict regarding the 2nd amendment. The right to self protection seems fundamental to me. The question is, what is the nature of real self protection. In a sane world, what does it matter who owns guns. Nobody would use them to kill as there would be no desire to murder and no need for self defense.

At the time white settlers were in the process of putting flags in aboriginal land, guns were vital for such theft or to prevent usurpation of ones theft by one's compatriots. Today we live is a civil society governed by law except in rural areas where legal protection is miles and hours away and most of us rely on law enforcement for our protection. I realize now my rambling could go for pages.

So it's a complex issue and I face it as somebody who loves guns and is also as sure as I can be that I'm never going to shoot anybody.

For these reasons I am very sympathetic to the notion that it is ignorance of the problem of self hate that leads to gun violence, the fact we would rather live in a violent competitive hate filled world than know ourselves and what we feel.

And the issue is really just beginning. The time may soon arrive when a deranged genius teenager may be able to builf his own home made nanobot self replicating molecular disassembler that can turn the surface of the whole planet to dust, or a virus that can kill billions, or an AI taught to hate people. Humanity is asleep and will only awaken with need. The question is will their be time between the need and the awakening to save ourselves. I have hopes we will see some measure of awakening in 2018. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Sunburn74]

Well lets see, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway and Western Poland all had guns and tanks and aircraft. Guess they were told that if they HAD guns they could of won. lol idiots

If the native americans would have had guns, they would still control most of the US according to this guy.

 

[woolfe9998]

I have a real conflict regarding the 2nd amendment. The right to self protection seems fundamental to me. The question is, what is the nature of real self protection. In a sane world, what does it matter who owns guns. Nobody would use them to kill as there would be no desire to murder and no need for self defense.

At the time white settlers were in the process of putting flags in aboriginal land, guns were vital for such theft or to prevent usurpation of ones theft by one's compatriots. Today we live is a civil society governed by law except in rural areas where legal protection is miles and hours away and most of us rely on law enforcement for our protection. I realize now my rambling could go for pages.

So it's a complex issue and I face it as somebody who loves guns and is also as sure as I can be that I'm never going to shoot anybody.

For these reasons I am very sympathetic to the notion that it is ignorance of the problem of self hate that leads to gun violence, the fact we would rather live in a violent competitive hate filled world than know ourselves and what we feel.

And the issue is really just beginning. The time may soon arrive when a deranged genius teenager may be able to builf his own home made nanobot self replicating molecular disassembler that can turn the surface of the whole planet to dust, or a virus that can kill billions, or an AI taught to hate people. Humanity is asleep and will only awaken with need. The question is will their be time between the need and the awakening to save ourselves. I have hopes we will see some measure of awakening in 2018. I won't hold my breath.

Out of curiosity, what is it above guns you love so much?