Media Matters: Registration ≠ Genocide

“A new video commentary released by the NRA references the Holocaust and other instances of persecution to advance the baseless claim that ‘the government is collecting more and more gun registration data which could be used against gun owners in the form of full confiscation,'” Timothy Johnson writes at the 501(c)(3) non-profit “progressive research and information center” known as mediamatters.org. “The NRA frequently uses the Holocaust to fearmonger about gun rights, and has on three recent occasions been rebuked by civil rights group Anti-Defamation League for misappropriating the history of the Holocaust.” In other words, Media Matters agrees with the ADL that gun registration has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Perhaps they didn’t read . . .

the recently published, exhaustively researched book Gun Control in the Third Reich. As my review pointed out . . .

It’s certainly true that Gun Control in the Third Reich doesn’t “crudely” argue that firearms restrictions lead to genocide. It makes the point by providing a sophisticated and detailed road map from one to the other, drawing on thousands of source materials. There can be no denying (now) that the Nazis’ systematic disarmament program capitalized on gun control laws passed by well-meaning liberals in the Weimar Republic. The Nazis used the previous government’s registration records to confiscate firearms and send their owners to concentration camps.

To say that Cheng’s wrong – that American gun registration couldn’t possibly lead to genocide – may not be the same as denying the Holocaust in its entirety. But it’s close enough. Because the Holocaust couldn’t have happened without civilian disarmament. Remembering that the Germans disarmed non-Jews at the same time (e.g., German WWI veterans and hunting club members), strangling the possibility of any effective (i.e. armed) resistance to the Nazi’s party’s fascist regime.

If that isn’t enough to make Media Matters take the matter of American gun registration seriously – and I seriously doubt that any appeal to logic, fact or reason will – here’s a quote about gun control from none other than Adolph Hitler:

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order.”

Source: April 11, 1942, “Hitler’s Table-Talk at the Fuehrer’s Headquarters 1941-1942”, Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaeum Verlag, Bonn, 1951).

And to those who claim that the Jews couldn’t have defended themselves against genocide by force of arms – in the same sense that American gun owners would be mincemeat for the might of a tyrannical army – I have two words: Warsaw Ghetto.

comments

  1. avatar Hannibal says:

    “…may not be the same as denying the Holocaust in its entirety. But it’s close enough.”

    No.

    1. avatar Howdy says:

      What do you mean?
      No, it is.
      or
      No, it isn’t.
      or
      No, there wasn’t a holocaust.

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      I take it that you are a prospective member of the DHS Police?

  2. avatar Jordan Stover says:

    A very relevant passage from Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F. 3d 567 (9th Cir. 2003).

    KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc:

    Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or … the press” also means the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997), and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” also means public telephone booths, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases — or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. See, e.g., Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc), rev’d sub nom. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.

    It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be 569*569 consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.

    The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose. Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to ignore binding precedent. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), did not hold that the defendants lacked standing to raise a Second Amendment defense, even though the government argued the collective rights theory in its brief. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 586-587; see also Brannon P. Denning & Glenn H. Reynolds, Telling Miller’s Tale: A Reply to David Yassky, 65 Law & Contemp. Probs. 113, 117-18 (2002). The Supreme Court reached the Second Amendment claim and rejected it on the merits after finding no evidence that Miller’s weapon — a sawed-off shotgun — was reasonably susceptible to militia use. See Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. 816. We are bound not only by the outcome of Miller but also by its rationale. If Miller’s claim was dead on arrival because it was raised by a person rather than a state, why would the Court have bothered discussing whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use? The panel majority not only ignores Miller’s test; it renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.

    The majority falls prey to the delusion — popular in some circles — that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks’ homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341-42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417, 15 L.Ed. 691 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to “keep and carry arms wherever they went”). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.

    All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. 570*570 Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 578-579. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

    My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

    Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel’s mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    The sheer ponderousness of the panel’s opinion — the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text — refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel’s labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it — and is just as likely to succeed.

    1. avatar JeffR says:

      More people need to recognize what a national treasure Judge Kozinski is. That he toils away in the 9th Circuit is also one of life’s delicious ironies.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        IF en banc review is granted in Peruta v. San Diego/Gore, the one saving grace is that, as the chief justice, he will be on the panel. The dark shadow is that there will be 10 other justices, randomly selected, and odds are that a majority of them will be liberal justices.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “IF en banc review is granted in Peruta v. San Diego/Gore,”

          What’s the timetable on granting or denying en banc Mark?

    2. avatar Peaches says:

      I always forget his name, I think that’s much better than the quote by Napolitino.

    3. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

      Judge Kozinski is a super star. I put him on a list of about half a dozen federal judges who have more brilliance and integrity in his right pinkie finger, than most of the other judges at any level of the federal judiciary have in their entire bodies.

      Wouldn’t it have been great had W. appointed him, instead of Roberts, to be Chief Justice? Think about it: back in the 1970s, Kozinski had been one of Justice Kennedy’s law clerks. Aside from America benefiting from this man’s superlative mastery of jurisprudence in the highest court, it would have been delicious to watch the student return to the Supreme Court to school his old wishy-washy teacher.

    4. avatar BDub says:

      That was truly inspired and inspiring. Thanks for posting it.

  3. avatar Zachary marrs says:

    No. Its not ttag, wtf is this garbage article?

    1. avatar gloomhound says:

      What are you trying to say?

    2. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      For you:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc

      Take the song’s lesson to heart.

  4. TTAG’s comment policies would prevent me from saying what is going through my mind when I read this post.

    Holocaust deniers make me so furious I can not even think straight.

    I better stop.

    I really, really want to say things that would require me to go to confession though.

    1. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

      Don’t hold back! They deserve it! even more than the “moon landing was faked” idiots and the 9/11 “truther” tards. Truther tard, I like that.

      1. I do so appreciate the invitation, but I must refrain..must be better than the idiots.

        On the other hand, if you are ever in Saint Louis, let me know and we can enjoy some cigars and fine Irish whiskey and you’ll get an earful.

        : )

        1. avatar ProfBathrobe says:

          “I must refrain..must be better than the idiots.”

          FINALLY! Someone gets it! Yes!

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          *waves from Brentwood*

      2. avatar RobGR says:

        Interesting, The Brotherhood of Steel, you lump people who question 9/11 and the many anomalies of that terrible day in with Holocaust deniers, great job! I guess anyone who questions TWA Flight 800 is also a Holocaust denier! Wow, god forbid anyone question our government and their agenda…..

        1. avatar Scot says:

          Yep, it makes lots of sense to lump ‘truthers’ in with other conspiracy theorists and Holocaust deniers.

  5. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

    According to latte liberals any quote made by hitler or the founding fathers is false, because that one dude made some up. Therefore anytime you quote them now you are lair. Liberal thought police at their finest.

  6. Now that I’ve calmed down a little bit….

    The real tragedy of the Holocaust is NOT that Germany banned private weapon ownership, but that the world powers after World War I did not IMMEDIATELY intervene to eradicate the Nazi a******s when they had a chance to. The minute Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia the allies could have launched a succesful invasion of Germany and stamped them out.

    But they did not.

    Just read, “In The Garden of the Beasts” if you want a real wake-up call of how culpable America, Britain, France and all other European powers are for what Hitler was ALLOWED to do.

    You can get the Kindle version for only $6.

    You have no excuse for ignorance on this point.

    http://www.amazon.com/In-Garden-Beasts-American-Hitlers/dp/030740885X

    I disagree with RF about a few things, but on this we stand absolutely united.

    Anyone who denies the Holocaust is a brainless, witless, idiotic, half-breed, mentally impaired, half-wit moron.

    That’s the nicest thing I can think to say.

    The Jews who resisted are to be honored as the great heroes that they are. The shame of America for turning away entire boats filled with Jewish refugees is to our eternal shame.

    And if you don’t agree…I’ll just ask you…do you send your KKK robes out for dry cleaning, or do you wash them at home?

    I need a drink now.

    1. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

      I don’t agree with you on allot of things either, but your correct, hit the nail on the head with that one. And what’s funny is some people will still argue in favor of appeasement. Please tear these types a new hole as much as you please.

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Chamberlain reminds me a lot of Bloomberg, and America at that point was deeply isolationist.

      1. Yup, what a failure.

        But God provided when the need arose…Churchill, precisely the right man at precisely the right time.

        God bless Winston.

        1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          …and USA farm and industrial capacity.

        2. avatar juliesa says:

          and Texas oil.

        3. avatar Jeff says:

          Churchill is by far one of the 20th century’s biggest bad-asses.

        4. avatar JuanCudz says:

          While I agree that hanging Czechoslovakia out dry was heinous (4th largest army in Europe and best pre-war tanks), Chamberlain gets a bit of a raw deal in all this. He managed to stealth rearm Britain while appearing the pacifist, as many still remembered losing our best generation 1914-1918. He is the reason we fought the Battle of Britain with Spitfires and Hurricanes, not Gladiators and Bulldogs.

      2. avatar Red Sox says:

        Chamberlain may remind you Bloomberg but Obama reminds me of Chamberlain.

        1. avatar rlc2 says:

          Obama is more like Wilson. He also is campaigning to be head of the UN, when he finishes up as POTUS. Maybe that will be the straw that breaks the camels back- gets the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US.

          But I digress, sorry.

        2. avatar KB Dave says:

          “Maybe that will be the straw that breaks the camels back- gets the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US.”

          Oh one can only hope. That would be the best thing BHO has ever done.

        3. avatar Scrubula says:

          Maybe he will bankrupt the UN trying to bring health insurance to the middle east…

    3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Even as late as the 1939 invasion of Poland by Germany, England and France could have ruined the Nazi parade by invading Germany versus playing phony war. Actually, if France and England had some decent military leadership, they could have held off the invasion of France in 1940 for quite awhile. One thing that people overlook is that Stalin was very helpful to the early Nazi successes in 1939 to the Summer of 1941.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Naturally, he had been promised that if he cooperated he would be left alone! And therefore trusted a man just as evil as himself until he was stabbed in the back, helping him see the light.

    4. avatar BDub says:

      “if you want a real wake-up call of how culpable America, Britain, France and all other European powers are for what Hitler was ALLOWED to do.”

      More culpable than any like to admit, it seems. Britain and the U.S. both embargoed the forced extradition of Jews from Europe by Hitler by turning ships back to Europe and actively sabotaging any Jewish emigrations to Central and South America, leading him directly to a conclusion that the only way to make good on his promise to get rid of the Jews was to physically annihilate them. In a sense it was called the Final Solution, because the first solution was thwarted.

  7. avatar Puyallup devil doc says:

    How does this article deny the holocaust?

    1. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

      It doesn’t, RF changed the title and rightly so, however the guy is trying to twist history, which is a sickly disturbing growing trend that I’ve seen even in the most professional education settings.

  8. Keep in mind that German was, by far, the wealthiest, prosperous, advanced, scientifically enriched nation on earth. These were the people who gave us all the major break throughs in science, philosophy, music, the arts and basically…you name it.

    And this was the nation that elected the degenerate Austrian who brought with him the chaos that plunged the entire world into the darkest abyss of evil we have ever seen and set the stage for the rise of the totalitarnism in the Soviet Union. The Germans armed the Soviets during WWI.

    And America just sat on the sidelines.
    And Europe sat on the sidelines and let it all happen.

    And WWII resulted.

    Dang, I’m furious.

    1. avatar JeffR says:

      While I agree with you on the Holocaust deniers and hope a good, stiff drink has settled your nerves, Germany was incredibly impoverished after WW I and the punitive Treaty of Versailles mandated by the U.S.’s European allies. (Pre-WW I, Germany may have been the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth with the U.S. and U.K. as it’s only competition.) This created the environment for a desperate people to be misled by that psychopath.

      1. Woodrow Wilson pleaded with the Europeans NOT to do what they did at Versailles.

        And the rest, as they say, is history.

        BUT there is NO excuse for what the Germans did. None. Zero.

        They plunged the world into horrors beyond belief and we are still paying for it today.

        In the end, perhaps we did finally pound the Germans out of their domination mentality. And that’s good.

        Never trust Germans with power. Period.

      2. avatar ThomasR says:

        You are not entirely correct JeffR. Read Hayeks book “The Road to Serfdom”: it describes how the growth of socialism in Germany leading into the 20th century created the fertile ground for what became Nazism. Hayek argues that with out the centralization of power into the governments hands leading up to the Great Depression because of socialistic government programs; Hitler couldn’t have grabbed power the way he did.

        Hayek also warned if we centralized government power through socialistic programs; England and the USA would have the same grounds for tyranny to be created; he was prophetic.

        1. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

          It is so often so strange that we who don’t learn from history, often repeat it.

        2. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

          I think you are both right in this case. Your points are not mutually exclusive. As we know from American history. Desperate times tend to make it easier to push for socialism.

      3. avatar BDub says:

        The entire West was impoverished after WWI – that is to say that WWI consumed entirely the wealth that had thus far been generated by all Nations undergoing the industrial revolution started in the 19th cent. Germany being placed at the bottom of that heap by the reparations it was made to bear.

    2. avatar Mike Crognale says:

      Sort of reminds you of the half-wit/breed we have in the white house now.

      1. avatar bigfinger76 says:

        No, not really. In fact, a thorough discussion of the topic here could be satisfactorily achieved without you shoehorning Obama into it.
        It’s extremely annoying.

        1. avatar Mike Crognale says:

          “Shoehorning Obama” into the conversation is entirely appropriate. His deliberate destruction of the Bill of Rights mirrors what happened in Germany during that time. His plans are proceeding apace. You, my friend, need to think before you criticize. A few moments reflection on the similarities would lead you to the same conclusion that I drew and succinctly expressed.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Am I the only one who saw this coming in 2008?

    3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Being of Sachsen descent, I have always wondered if the 30 year war had not so weakened Sachsen territories and provinces, that the course of history would have been changed. With Sachsen still being powerful and dominant versus losing to Pruessen, thus possibly resulting in a less autocratic and militaristic government during 1870 to 1945. Historical Dresden was not Berlin.

      1. Um…what?

        Rewind and try rewriting that bro.

        1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          Look at the historical interaction between Sachsen and Pruessen over the centuries.

        2. Dude, you are making ZERO sense.

          The words I think you are trying to use are SAXONY and PRUSSIA.

          Now, start over, take your time, and try to put up a coherent comment.

          Stop trying to be a pretentious twit. Yes, I am fluent in German.

        3. avatar Jim says:

          Then you should know that Sachsen und Preußen are German for Saxony and Prussia.

        4. avatar foggy says:

          “Pretentious?” Wow! Something springs to mind involving pots and kettles.

      2. avatar Scot says:

        The unified German state was a consequence of Prussian hegemony. What are the odds that it would have happened with an ascendent Saxony?

    4. avatar Scot says:

      The Depression stomped Germany flat. Creating the conditions where the Nazis (and communists — lots of street fighting between the two) could grow.

      But the Germans did not ‘elect’ Hitler. They elected members of his party to the Reichstag, and eventually forced the aging von Hindenburg to appoint Hitler Chancellor. And the rest, as they say, is history.

  9. avatar Scot says:

    Minor detail, but Pickler’s book was written and published in German in 1951.

  10. avatar Jus Bill says:

    Media Matters ≠ Reality.

    1. Pithy is good.

      You win the Internet today.

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    I find it bizarre that the confiscation of guns by the Nazis is denied by a Jewish group. RF you are in a distinct minority of Jewish folks in America. It’s as if the majority have a KNIFE at their collective throats. I am probably more angry than the rev but I get it from ultra left black folks too. Keep shining that light RF. The real TRUTH ABOUT GUNS. BTW…whenever I hear someone extolling the so-called “Palestinians” I have to wonder if they remember who was CHEERING after 911? Jordan is the real Palestine and could accommodate every single terrorist…er freedom fighter. “I will bless them that bless you and CURSE them that curse you.”

    1. One of the owners of my favorite training facilities is an Orthodox Jew and we have together marveled at the fact that, of all people, Jews are often among the most stridently pro-gun control, gun banning and such in the USA.

      It entirely boggles my mind.

      The man I am referring too even brought out a booth to observe (Hebrew: סוכות‎ or סֻכּוֹת sukkōt or sukkos, Feast of Booths, Feast of Tabernacles) while shooting with his family.

      Awesome.

    2. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

      Yup, I think allot of those who support Palestine stem from those who are too young to remember 911, or remember very little.

      1. Dang, Brotherhood of Steel, I think I’m developing a little man crush here for you.

        🙂

        1. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

          Now you’ve had a few hahaha. Nothing wrong with a little alcohol and TTAG. Keeps the discussions lively.

      2. avatar Gordon Wagner says:

        What? Palestine had nothing to do with 9/11. Are you referring to the birthday celebration video that CNN put in heavy rotation that morning? An interesting and telling programming choice. CNN later apologized, or so I’ve been told.

        Read Christopher Bollyn’s “Solving 9/11” and count the number of “dual-citizenship” types who feature in the examination.

        1. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

          I must disagree. There were not just celebrations in one part of Palestine, there were mass celebrations all over the Middle East were they chanted “OSAMA BIN LADEN” repetitavley. This I remember watching.

      3. avatar BDub says:

        Or those old enough to know some pre-1946 history.

        1. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

          So then you know, that Palestine was never a nation, but a province of the Ottoman Empire, which after its collapse was then occupied without resistance by the British Empire. And the “Palestinians” were never “A People”. It is nothing more than a myth. The “Palestinians” were simply Arab Muslim citizens of the Ottoman Empire. The British returned the Jewish homeland to its rightful owner. There is a reason that the only countries that recognize a mythical “Palestine”, are Arab.

        2. avatar Scot says:

          I’m old enough to have read a lot of pre-1946 history (are you in your 80s to be able to claim that you ‘remember’ it?) and don’t see any reason, based on that history, to support Hamas.

  12. avatar stateisevil says:

    I’ll gladly give them registration for those guns I shoot on public property, which is zero. In exchange I’ll want the elimination of all other gun laws. Deal?

  13. avatar JasonM says:

    Wow, the tone of that video is about as far from Dom Raso’s paramilitary cop apologies as you can get. The NRA should support Chris’ position, and go full force in defense of all individual rights.

  14. This post has made me rethink my fairly low opinon of RF’s obsession with bashing cops.

    Upon further reflection, it make a hell of a lot of sense now.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      I sort of bash cops to a degree. I have had family and friends who were and still are LEOs of one sort or another. I do not have a problem with Government employees, military, LEOs when they are true servants of the private citizens. I have a problem with the tendency and trends of the above being our Lord and Masters. I think Washington had statement about government being like fire.

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        You mean this quote; “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” George Washington

        The other famous quote about power is by Lord Acton; “All power has the tendency to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely”

        1. avatar Scot says:

          Washington quote is bogus. I’ve looked for it. Supposed to be from one of his major speeches but none of the ones to which it has been attributed contain it.

          It’s a nice quote though. Wish he had said it.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Blind faith is, well . . . blind.

  15. avatar Pete from Texas says:

    Good video, but that bit about forcing Jews to register in the Ukraine turned out to be bullshit..

    1. Sorry, what?

      The Jews in Ukraine were either slaughtered by the Nazis or the Stalinists.

      1. avatar Pete from Texas says:

        Seems like someone didn’t bother to watch the video.

  16. avatar former water walker says:

    When Mark Twain visited the Holy Land he marveled at what an empty desolate wasteland it was. The Bedouin tribesmen who were the main inhabitants 150years ago could not imagine the desert blooming as a rose. And neither could the Sultan of the Ottoman empire. BTW how is little Hitler’s trip to Israel going? Any errant rocket attacks?

    1. Frankly, while I’m a roll here, if the Muslims care SO much about the Palestinians, how about they carve out a chunk of THEIR countries to house them? Feed them? Care for them? No? Why not?

      Oh, that’s right, BECAUSE THE MUSLIMS WON’T CARE FOR THEIR OWN!!!

      Palestine is and has been a crap-hole for many centuries. Everyone knows it.

      Israel has turned that wasteland into the most freedom-loving democracy in the Middle East.

      If the Mexicans decided to start sending rockets into Texas and other states along the border, what would the USA do???

      Oh, you know what we would we do.

      We would light them up like the Fourth of July.

      So, all the liberals crying over Gaza need to start asking why the Muslim terrorists are willing to sacrifice women and children and civilians as they put up their arms and rockets in places like schools and near hospitals.

      I say, go Israel.

    2. avatar foggy says:

      Ah, the old “We put the land to more productive use than the savages who were squatting on it argument.” See how far that gets you with Native Americans.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        How far has YOUR argument gotten the Native Americans?

      2. avatar Scot says:

        Happens to be the basis for every migration of peoples throughout history (after the ‘we were pushed out of our old home by someone stronger, so we’re pushing you).

        Fact is that the region we call Palestine, which had a different name under the Ottoman Empire, was one of the backwaters of that Empire. Few people, few settlements/villages, swamps in some areas, etc.

        One can argue about how ’empty’ North America was when the English got here after a century of European diseases ravaging the Indians (See Guns, Germs, and Steel by Diamond, not that I endorse his overall thesis, but his facts about the depopulation by disease are interesting), but given the historical record, both by visitors from Europe and the US, as well as contemporary Ottoman reports it’s rather hard to say that the land was being put to any use, much less productive use.

  17. avatar Gordon Wagner says:

    Do your own research, and realize it’s a third-rail topic you will never be able to discuss or debate — but can you think of even one other topic in all of recorded history which you are discouraged from examining critically? That alone speaks volumes — that is bizarre and disturbing.

    1. Gordon, what is “disturbing” is that there are Cretans such as yourself who actually attempt to deny what happened during World War II.

      Go crawl back under the rock from whence you came.

      Idiot. Take your Hitler loving, Swastika adoring attitude and shove it where the sun does not shed its rays.

      For anyone who wants to read that this jerk is all about, just Google the following:

      “Gordon Wagner” holocaust

      And keep in mind that name, “Wagner” the guy whom Hitler absolutely adored.

      Wagner, seriously, go away. Now.

      1. avatar foggy says:

        What do you have against people from Crete? The Minoan civilization was one of the most advanced in the early Mediterranean. Just kidding, but seriously use the proper word. The one you were looking for is “cretin”.

  18. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    Actually Stephen Halbrook is giving a presentation on the Nazis and gun control tonite. Check the link for a live stream on Ustream. It starts at 10pm eastern.

    http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2014/07/watch-live-streaming-video-of-tonights.html?m=1

  19. avatar int19h says:

    I don’t think anyone has ever claimed that Nazi gun confiscations didn’t happen. But to claim that they lead to genocide implies a causal relationship where there isn’t one. The desire of Nazis to commit genocide prompted them to register and then confiscate guns, not the other way around. So to claim that registration can lead to genocide is an obvious logical fallacy. It can aid one, sure.

    1. You are terribly missing the point.

      They stripped away the means the people they wanted to eradicate would have to defend themselves.

      This is not hard to understand.

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      If the claim is that gun control can lead to genocide, yes it certainly can lead to it.

      You seem to be arguing (in spite of your phrasing) against the claim that it will lead to genocide. I.e., that every time gun control is instituted, genocide follows. That is ridiculous.

      I do think that genocide is difficult if not impossible to carry out without first confiscating peoples’ means of defending themselves. But that’s a very different claim. “Genocide, only if gun control” (the true claim) is different from “if gun control, then genocide” (the overblown claim). Unfortunately JPFO tries to argue the latter when they should be arguing the former; that German gun control enabled (did not cause, but it enabled) the Holocaust.

      Unfortunately I’ve noticed that about fifty percent of people cannot see this distinction. They’d fail an elementary logic class.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        “You seem to be arguing (in spite of your phrasing) against the claim that it will lead to genocide. I.e., that every time gun control is instituted, genocide follows. That is ridiculous.”

        Should end with “That claim should be argued with, because it is ridiculous.”

    3. avatar GenghisQuan says:

      No one claims they *lead* to genocide, per se.

      They do claim that it enables it. Since it has happened, then it’s reasonable to take steps to prevent it from happening here.

      Or, to borrow a phrase from the anti’s, gun control doesn’t cause genocide, but it does make it easier.

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      You are deluding yourself. If we confiscate all guns tomorrow, then sometime 3 weeks or a hundred years from now, genocide will happen, because the people have no way to stop the government. That makes it a causal relationship. Just because Osama wishes all the best for his subjects, does not mean our rulers in 2050 will. And once a right is willingly surrendered, we will never get it back.
      The whole idea of “gun control” was to disarm blacks so they were easier to kill. Since someone finally, after 100 years, began applying the laws to white people as well, finally there is some resistance, some roll back. It should have never happened.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        “You are deluding yourself. If we confiscate all guns tomorrow, then sometime 3 weeks or a hundred years from now, genocide will happen, because the people have no way to stop the government. That makes it a causal relationship.”

        The hell it does. You aren’t using the proper definition of the term “causal.” The confiscation of guns ENABLES genocide to happen down the road, it doesn’t CAUSE it.

        If I put a bowl of ice cream in front of Rosie O’Donnell, do I cause her subsequent weight gain? No, I only enable it. Similarly, a genocide can only be caused by the people who actually do the deed.

        Interesting that people who would insist you should not be blamed for something that happens after a gun is stolen don’t make that fine distinction here.

  20. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    In closing, most dictators of any political brand usually dislike guns in private hands. They like guns, but under government control.

  21. avatar rlc2 says:

    Jew bashing is the slimy under-coating of modern Progressivev2.0, part and parcel of its own DNA, as the clever rebranding of “democratic party liberalism” as it evolved from 1930 Progressive movement, which took much of its own dirty rotten core from British Socialists and the looser screws of the US Marxists and Communist Party, including the eugenics core of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, one of its fellow travelers.

    If you want to read some older articles that tie the history of gun confiscations to top down State Sponsored Fascism, for thats really all Progressive Politics is, when you get right down to it-
    just read JPFOs site, here: they have been banging the drum on this for 25 years.

    http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/commentary.htm

    BTW, for those who dont know already-
    Media Matters is George Soros sponsored Progressive disinformation campaign-
    from their own “about” page-
    Media Matters for America is a
    Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation
    in the U.S. media.

    David Brock is a nut, and a gun-grabber hypocrite, who travels with his own bodyguards:
    http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/27/media-matters-founder-david-brock-we-appreciate-soros-funding-to-pursue-journalists/

    http://weaselzippers.us/106007-tax-returns-show-media-matters-funded-by-george-soros-moveon-org-barbra-streisand/

  22. avatar Excedrine says:

    Oh, but please, Media Matters, completely forget about what happened to the Native Americans, African-Americans, and Japanese-Americans here. Or the Christian Armenians in Turkey. Or the Tutsi in Africa. Or the educated in Cambodia. Or political dissidents in Moa’s China or Stalin’s Russia. Or.. well, you get the picture.

    Democide — death by government — has killed well in excess of 200,000,000 people. And that’s just in the 20th Century alone.

    http://youtu.be/KwrTHGdf3Ss

    “Innocents Betrayed: The True Story of Gun Control”. I dare you to watch it in HD, and be prepared to be shocked, horrified, appalled, and red-faced angry — and also be equally prepared to disabuse yourself of any delusions of gun control meaning safety in any meaningful way whatsoever.

  23. avatar anona says:

    Interesting reading here.

    Background: Nizkor is a site against denial of the Nazi holocaust and Finkelstein is a left-wing jew who is hated by the ADL.

    http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/l/lipstadt.deborah/ftp.cgi?people//f/finkelstein.norman/Holocaust_industry

  24. avatar Axman says:

    No, not the same as denying the Holocaust. This attempt is similar to what anti gun people do. Best to stick with the facts and not try and blow something already despicable into something more despicable. The article could have done without the entire “denying” headline.

  25. avatar JoMama says:

    @PTM-Spot on about Israel. I use the same points when debating the “conflict”.

  26. avatar former water walker says:

    Big +1 ric2. And I’ll repeat the notion that most American Jewish folks are suicidal to support the baby murdering left. In the hierarchy of racial purity Jews are right at the bottom along with black africans or anyone with dark skin. And the Christian right gets called RACIST. I believe mass genocide by way of abortion is the ultimate racism.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Which is why you support current law, correct? Whereby the government is prohibited from being any part of the decision making process, instead leaving the totality of the decision to the one person who is actually involved, the pregnant woman. It is called freedom of choice. Thus, no genocide! How lovely, right?

      1. avatar Scot says:

        “one person involved”?

        If there is only one person involved there is no reason for an abortion.

  27. avatar Scrubula says:

    I think I just linked a few thoughts that the founding fathers may have been thinking upon writing the second amendment. This is especially relevant when we think of a possible genocide or dictatorship forming in our country.

    As the court system requires the other two branches of the government to behave and follow their orders, but the court system has no means to enforce its provisions, the armed populace, unregistered, unregulated, uncontrolled is the only thing standing to enforce the court and put fear in a tyrannical government. In other words, a populace afraid of their government is a subjugation whereas a government that fears their people will only work to please the people.

    Oh yeah, NAZI is an abbreviation of the german National Socialist party. They were fascists under the disguise of ‘good progressive socialists’

  28. avatar Yochonon says:

    former water walker said: “In the hierarchy of racial purity Jews are right at the bottom along with black africans or anyone with dark skin.”

    Uh, exactly what the hell is that supposed to mean? I’m as Jewish as they come, but I and my family are fair-skinned, blond-haired and blue-eyed. My wife- who’s just as Jewish has olive skin, dark auburn hair and green eyes. And my son is married to a wonderful Ethiopian girl who’s black, yet still just as Jewish as the rest of us. So how in the name of Moishe’s tuchus does that make us prejudiced or racist? My only concern to my son when he wanted to marry was to stay away from liberals and J.A.P’s.

    1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

      It means exactly what I said. Muslims and Nazis will kill you and deny your humanity just because you are Jewish even if you look just like Kirk Douglas. In America many Jewish people have “opted to be white European”. Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding too. I was referring to racial and ethnic prejudice. And I AM a goy from Illinois as white as they come married to a beautiful black woman for 25 years with 2 large caramel colored sons who are considered black. And I’m pretty clear Adolf Hitler killed plenty of blue eyed Jews, as well the dark olive skinned persons. Finally this is all I have to say. I support Israel and the Jewish people.

      1. avatar foggy says:

        Sorry, but Judaism is not a race, it is a religion. Most people whose ancestors are from Europe and who profess the Jewish faith are ethnically European.

        1. avatar Scot says:

          Judaism is both a race and a religion. There are many people who claim to be Jews that don’t practice the religion, and most anti-Semites would include them in their pogroms, just as the Nazis did

      2. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Sorry, but I had trouble with your post as well. It looked to me as if you yourself were saying Jews were as inferior as blacks (which would make you a disgusting human being), not that you were saying that racists usually considered Jews and blacks to be at the bottom of the heap (which would be an accurate description of what certain disgusting human beings believe). Your more recent post (the one to which I am replying) makes it clear that can’t possibly be what you think but not everyone here knew (or necessarily rememberer) your personal circumstances and to whom you are married when they read that first post.

        1. avatar Yochonon says:

          It wasn’t my lack of reading comprehension Former Water Walker, but rather your inability to express yourself coherently in your statement. (And my thanks to Steve for saying what I was preparing to say). And I apologize if my tome was brusk, that wasn’t my intention. But neither did you have cause to call my intelligence into question. That was quite crass and uncalled for. If you go back and re-read your original posting, it appeared as if you were stating what Steve has previously said- that Jews were the ones that were prejudiced. If you take another look at your posting, I think you’ll understand what I’m saying.

          As someone who’s been the brunt of prejudice his entire life, I sometimes jump in with both feet, when I think I’m being insulted. But, I see now that wasn’t the case. So take care and be well.

  29. avatar Karl From Commiefornia says:

    graphic warning
    Gun Control…The True Story of Innocents Betrayed
    youtu.be/NN0vkSO9n8Y

  30. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

    My late father, a decorated vet with many honors from WWII, along with his fellow soldiers helped to liberate many Jews and Poles awaiting extermination. He brought back photos, and mementos given to him by some he helped to liberate.

    When asked, “What evidence could be provided to you to prove the truth of this situation?” deniers will often say, “None.”

  31. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Have any of the Pro-Registration peoples been able to answer the question of the *benefit* to the citizens of having a registration?

    I know they say over and over again about how they can trace crime guns and prove ownership and compare the idea to vehicle registration…. but have any of the pro-registration people actually presented an actual benefit to the idea?

    1. avatar Scot says:

      I’ve been asking the hoplophobes for decades to present some evidence that registration has actually ever resulted in a crime being cleared that wouldn’t have been cleared without it.

      The responses……crickets.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I can easily give you what I believe is the ONLY possible benefit of spending zillions of dollars on firearm registration, and I bet no one will even quibble with my assertion. Here goes; should your firearm be lost or stolen, the authorities will be able to return it to you once found/recovered. I did not say they WOULD return it. And those advancing the concept of registration would laugh at the idea that anyone would use the registration for that purpose. Otherwise, the only thing which it could accomplish is assisting confiscation.

  32. avatar Out_Fang_Thief says:

    What do you expect from the progressive-Left? They’re still portraying the Nazi’s as being a politically Right-wing entity, and still, continually accuse conservative republicans of being the same. The ideological Left in America have been denying that their political beliefs are more closely/directly aligned to those of Hitler and Stalin, or any Left-wing tyranny for that matter. Most of them are now “sunk cost” in their belief that they on the Left are good, and those on the Right are bad. They have invested so much of their lives and belief system on maintaining this lie, that to admit that they were as wrong as a sentient primate could be, would cause them to have a complete meltdown. Their well protected and historically distorted version of reality would be mercilessly destroyed by anything resembling the truth. Who wants to cop to that one?

    “You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.” Morpheus ~ The Matrix

  33. avatar former water walker says:

    Huh? Foggy you can believe European Jews are ethnically European and that Judaism is merely a religion. So all those pogroms and gas chambers were only about religion? And tell all the Muslim hoards who consider you sub-human even with your blue eyes and blond hair…

  34. avatar former water walker says:

    Whatever steve. It’s not like I haven’t made HUNDREDS OF POSTS. And at this late stage in life I don’t CARE if I’m misunderstood. It’s not like I’m making money online.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      You’ve made hundreds of posts, sure. So have I. So have dozens of other people. Honestly I can only keep about ten-fifteen people straight in my head, when I have no faces to put to the screen names. And even then I certainly won’t remember everything they’ve ever said about their personal lives.

      You sure do expect people to remember everything you ever posted, don’t you? (Well something tells me they WILL remember some of the bravo sierra you posted downthread in response to Foggy and Garrison Hall.)

      If you don’t care whether you are misunderstood, then why bother correcting people? Clearly you do care, but are unwilling to admit maybe you just did a piss-poor job of expressing yourself in that post.

  35. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    “Huh? Foggy you can believe European Jews are ethnically European and that Judaism is merely a religion.”

    Oh, good grief. This makes my head hurt. Judaism is a religion in exactly the same way as being a Catholic or a Muslim is a religion. Jews, despite the best efforts of sundry Nazis and others, are not a race. In fact, there is no such thing as biological race. Humans are the same under the skin; our blood transfuses, our organs transplant, etc. Ideas like “race” and “ethnicity” are nothing more than social constructs which are used to arbitrarily classify people. Functionally there is no real difference classifications of race and ethnicity.

    1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

      Yep you’re right. And I bet you believe in unicorns too & hold hands around a campfire. Take something for that headache.

    2. avatar Scot says:

      Social constructs? So in a group of people you wouldn’t be able to pick out those with Nordic ancestry, versus those with Southern European ancestry? Or you can’t tell Asians from Africans? If the only differences are merely social, with no genetic or other differences you should be able to.

      I agree that there is no significant meaning to race, but that doesn’t mean that races don’t exist. Do you deny the existence of different breeds of dogs or cattle too?

      What do you do, in your head, with people who claim to be Jews but who don’t practice any form of Judaism? Jews who have converted to Christianity, for example, do you deny them the ability to call themselves Jews?

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Judaism / Jewishness is a unique case IMHO. The religion was essentially the national religion of a nation, i.e., an ethnic group, one of the Semitic tribes. Which ended up scattered all over the world. One could say the religion should be called “Jewish” (or Judaic, or Judaism) and the ethnicity should be called “Hebrew” but people keep on using “Jew” (or a derivative) for both.

        If the English language were sane, perhaps the people you mention in your last paragraph could be called non-Jewish Hebrews, just as you can have non-Muslim Arabs, non-Catholic Italians, etc. But people try to make the word “Jew” do double duty, perhaps because very few Jews don’t claim Hebrew descent (but look up Khazaria sometime–it’s possible many Eastern Europen Jews weren’t in fact Hebrew!). Clearly the Nazis were after the ethnic group at least as much as they were after the religion; if you and your parents and your grandparents were Christian but had one Jewish (meaning Hebrew) ancestor a century ago, they’d take your gun(s) away, put you in a cattle car then stuff you into the gas chamber.

  36. avatar former water walker says:

    I agree that their is no such thing as race. Of one blood means we can all interbreed. Not to pile on but as an OFWG I assume I carry 2-4%Neanderthal DNA. My pure African brothers may have 0% caveman. And my dark brown “African-American” wife may have something in-between. But the world at large doesn’t deal in abstracts. And the Muslim world doesn’t either. And MY GOD is the LION OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH. Shalom.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email