The Lies About the “Hitler Gun Control Lie”

[Nintendesert]

Right. People born and raised in war know how to fight.

Americans are born and raised to be fat. Not the same thing.

Perhaps, but hundreds of thousands of us have also spent years of our lives fighting wars and America does have a hardened veteran force, albiet very small as a % of the population. You also can't assume a greater "government" ability to inflict violence against the populace to control people when the military is made up of people that would most likely be the target of such government actions.

Looking at the whole of law enforcement/paramilitary type organizations most don't answer to the Federal government.

 

[jackstar7]

Perhaps, but hundreds of thousands of us have also spent years of our lives fighting wars and America does have a hardened veteran force, albiet very small as a % of the population. You also can't assume a greater "government" ability to inflict violence against the populace to control people when the military is made up of people that would most likely be the target of such government actions.

Looking at the whole of law enforcement/paramilitary type organizations most don't answer to the Federal government.

With regards to the bolded: based on what?

 

[zinfamous]

The Nazis were gun grabbing atheists. He voilated every one of the ten commandments and then took everyone's guns away.

Your gun grabbing arguments are weak and you are foolish to espouse them.

the Nazis weren't atheists, you ignorant pussbucket.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

the Nazis weren't atheists, you ignorant pussbucket.

You are wasting your time; he is mentally defective. And if you were unaware of the following- He is an adherent of a religion that has chosen for its leader, a former Hitler youth. Making the blanket statement about Nazis being atheists absurdly comical.

 

[sm625]

Riight. Tell that to the people of Afghanistan that have taken on the two super powers and won. Both the Soviet Union and the USA went to die a slow death in that country and they are fighting with late 19th century rifles and early 20th century rifles.

You actually think the US (and USSR) went to afghanistan to fight and win a war? LOL. It's about guns, drugs, and money laundering. For every trillion dollars moved around the various war budgets, certain folks get to easily siphon off 10,20, hell maybe even 30%. Hundreds of billions, every year. After a few years some jackass goes on tv and says the pentagon cannot account for trillions in spending... yes they actually admitted that they "lost " trillions of dollars, back in 2001. Go look it up. They didnt lose this money. Its just a giant racket. Russia did the same thing. Spent a bunch of tax money to enrich a few corrupt mafia types. Ruined their whole country. But they dont care, any more than the neocons and the trilaterals and CFR goons care.

 

[HumblePie]

Hitler wasn't an Atheist.

Hitler did disarm Jews and those segments of the population that he wanted to eradicate. He did have public speeches about disarming these people for the sake of lives of children. More than a few people have drawn similarities between those speeches Hitler gave and Obama gave with the children of Sandy Hook. I'm not saying those are correct distinctions to draw. Nor do I agree with them. I can see where people can find similarities though. Hitler had an obvious agenda to persecute a whole population segment and kill them. Obama doesn't strike me as that sinister at all.

Beyond that, I have no idea what the hell the OP is trying to accomplish with his post. Most rational people know that Obama is not the next Hitler. They are trying to show that another politician in recent history used children in his speeches as a driving force to apply a form of gun ban. That people should not go into panic mode or sappy mode with what I really would call the exploitation of traumatized children/families to drum up additional support for bad legislation through emotional appeal only.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Beyond that, I have no idea what the hell the OP is trying to accomplish with his post.

Seems pretty straight-forward to me. Perhaps you need to re-read it.

As for the other thing...

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.

Yeah, sure sounds like a card-carrying atheist to me.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

. They are trying to show that another politician in recent history used children in his speeches as a driving force to apply a form of gun ban. That people should not go into panic mode or sappy mode with what I really would call the exploitation of traumatized children/families to drum up additional support for bad legislation through emotional appeal only.

Godwin's is not just for the interwebs IME.

And the reason they make the appeal to emotion, is because it will work on far too many. Consider the innumerable times people here type "Won't someone please think of the children?!" with dripping sarcasm. Then observe how asshats/politicians will still leverage it effectively with the populace. It is just too easy to control most people via emotions.

I have friends that are intelligent, but still knee jerk react to things. Going with that first rush of emotion, instead of thinking things through. We end up getting into spirited debates because they react like that. Usually they are surround by others at work and home, that did the same thing. So it re-enforces their initial reaction. That makes it more difficult to get them to consider the issues more thoroughly. And so we find ourselves time and time again witnessing the same failtastic tactics successfully employed to further an agenda.

 

[HumblePie]

The point of the OP is trying to dismantle a very valid argument. Hitler was a politician. He used political force to change the circumstances of a single aspect of the German population he no longer wanted in Germany. First it was to disarm them. Then to relocate them. Then to bring about stricter and more tyrannical measures of laws against them. Finally he basically made it illegal to be who they were and started killing them en masse as a penalty. It was a series of incremental steps to do what he did.

The point being that Hitler could not just from the outset chose to try and commit genocide against German Jews. He had to weaken their position first and erode their ability to fight back both physically and mentally. By the time he was able to move, many German Jews went to the slaughter like sheep. It's said to say but it happened. This is why that saying among Jews resonates so much with the survivors. The "First They came for..." speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Because each little piece had very little opposition, by the time the end came it was already too late to resist.

This is why many gun rights advocates are set against this incrementalism about gun bans constantly being proposed. There is already a ban on a certain segment of fire arms. Those are TRUE assault weapons used by the military that can fire in burst or full auto mode. After that legislation passed, the next was trying to get weapons that LOOKED like those military weapons. Once that one is passed, next will be weapons that have other similar characteristics to those passed. Eventually laws will be passed to completely ban guns altogether if there isn't opposition to stop it. That is EXACTLY how Hitler as a politician made his move to power. It was in incremental steps to get his final way. He dismantles the opposition one little piece at a time until there was no opposition. People are drawing the correlation between the methods used by this eventual tyrannical politician and those of current politicians.

I'm not saying that Obama is out to seek genocide by eventually trying to remove all guns from the hands of American Citizens. That's an idiotic conclusion to draw. Nor is the article you linked talking about. They are just highlighting similarities between how political force was maneuvered in the past to impose tyranny on a segment of a population and how some of those same maneuvers are being used today by certain politicians.

 

[zinfamous]

You are wasting your time; he is mentally defective. And if you were unaware of the following- He is an adherent of a religion that has chosen for its leader, a former Hitler youth. Making the blanket statement about Nazis being atheists absurdly comical.

oh, I'm well-verse in MeowKat memes. I remind him every time though.


and fwiw--As scummy and deplorable a human piece of filth that Ratzenberger is, I find it unfair to criticize him as being a member of the Hitler Youth. This was an organization, essentially prior to invasion of Poland, that was sponsored by the Nazis as a group not unlike our precious homo-hating boyscouts. despite it being a national group of "youth enrichment" that taught some rather deplorable things, choice, I think, was not much of an option.