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

[bshole]

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.

Care to list specific instances in the last 50 years? I am drawing a complete and utter blank.

 

[Moonbeam]

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

I have thought about that a lot and am not sure I know the answer. I had super toy guns as a child and loved playing war and cowboys and Indians. I used to shoot a pellet gun with my father by the time I was four. There was a pearl handled 38 revolver I used to sneak out and look at sometimes when nobody was around and I had a shotgun and a lever action 30 ought six in the garage I could dig out and mess with that belonged to my Mother’s father who was a horse thief. I think I liked the feelings of forbidden danger and mystery and intreague that accompanied all of this.

Also, I have a deep sense of reverence for objects of art, their physical proportions and beauty, that coupled with the a seeming innate mechanical aptitude that leads to a love for machines. I have the same love for old cars.

My guess is that the thought of owning guns makes me feel safe even though the ones I own are not anyplace I can get to them. They are put away and I rarely ever see them. Call it a placebo thingi.

Three or four months back I spent hours on line learning about the AR 15. But guns cost money and I can better use what I have since I spend a lot taking care of relatives in need.

If I lived in the country on acreage, I would definitely get an Olympic type rifle for plinking. I used to do archery but traffic and distance to a range are no longer impediments I will ignore.

 

[woolfe9998]

I have thought about that a lot and am not sure I know the answer. I had super toy guns as a child and loved playing war and cowboys and Indians. I used to shoot a pellet gun with my father by the time I was four. There was a pearl handled 38 revolver I used to sneak out and look at sometimes when nobody was around and I had a shotgun and a lever action 30 ought six in the garage I could dig out and mess with that belonged to my Mother’s father who was a horse thief. I think I liked the feelings of forbidden danger and mystery and intreague that accompanied all of this.

Also, I have a deep sense of reverence for objects of art, their physical proportions and beauty, that coupled with the a seeming innate mechanical aptitude that leads to a love for machines. I have the same love for old cars.

My guess is that the thought of owning guns makes me feel safe even though the ones I own are not anyplace I can get to them. They are put away and I rarely ever see them. Call it a placebo thingi.

Three or four months back I spent hours on line learning about the AR 15. But guns cost money and I can better use what I have since I spend a lot taking care of relatives in need.

If I lived in the country on acreage, I would definitely get an Olympic type rifle for plinking. I used to do archery but traffic and distance to a range are no longer impediments I will ignore.

Fair enough. I use to like them as a child, probably for similar reasons, the same reasons that many young boys like them. I played with those plastic green army men a lot. Had a bb gun as well. As an adult, I refuse to own them.

 

[DaveSimmons]

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.

POTUS did suggest that using guns to change the outcome of an election if the "wrong" person won the vote was a valid response in 21st century America.

 

[Moonbeam]

POTUS did suggest that using guns to change the outcome of an election if the "wrong" person won the vote was a valid response in 21st century America.

From somebody's point of view the wrong person always wins. A member of a secular society who enjoys all the security offered him by the rule of law is morally obliged to follow those same rules himself or herself, so yes the POTUS is a dangerous lunatic who should never have been elected and also long ago impeached as the evidence came in like a tsunami.

 

[urvile]

Also nevermind, this was an army that took over the majority of Europe and pushed the British army into the English Channel.

Not to mention it took the combined might of the british empire, the united states and the soviet union to defeat them. Do congressmen in the US get taxpayer funded subsidies for crack habits? This is a legitimate question.

 

[Moonbeam]

Not to mention it took the combined might of the british empire, the united states and the soviet union to defeat them. Do congressmen in the US get taxpayer funded subsidies for crack habits? This is a legitimate question.

Rationalizations are not unlike and probably are low grade paranoid delusions. They are hyper states of brain activity driven by emotion, the emotions of fear of threat to the ego.

 

[Commodus]

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.

Oh, for sure it's not as simple as assuming that the whole military would cooperate. It probably wouldn't be as clear cut as I portrayed it, if I'm honest. But I do think many of the people who think we "must" have semi-auto rifles have a romantic notion of how much they could actually contribute. They picture themselves as Red Dawn Wolverines or French resistance fighters, but there's a better chance they'd end up like David Koresh (that is, making a last stand that accomplishes nothing).

 

[senseamp]

There is a history of Jewish self defense in Eastern Europe:

Armed Jewish self-defense militias were formed after pogroms in early 20th century in then Russian Empire and had some effect against anti-semitic mobs, but it's kind of silly to think they would have had much effect against a professional military, be it Czarist, Soviet, or Nazi German. It also did militarize the community and a lot of them got involved in organized crime and subversive Communist activities later.
Another problem is that a lot of older Jews got along and even traded with invading Germans during WWI, expected a repeat, and were caught by surprise with the genocide directed at them, along with those who listened to their tales.