Presidential candidate Ben Carson caught major flack for stating that German civilian disarmament enabled the Holocaust. Anti-gun commentators and Jewish organizations alike condemned the statement. To its eternal shame, the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement saying “the notion that Hitler’s gun-control policy contributed to the Holocaust is historically inaccurate . . . gun control did not cause the Holocaust; Nazism and anti-Semitism did.” See what they did there? Conflating cause and methodology. The truth is . . .
Germany’s gun control laws disarmed ALL German civilians in the run-up to Hitler’s Nazi regime. As I pointed out in my review of Gun Control in the Third Reich . . .
Those who say the Nazis would have exterminated the Jews even if they’d been armed to the teeth miss the point: the Nazis used gun control to gain, establish and consolidate power. There wouldn’t have been a Third Reich, nor a Jewish holocaust, without gun control. Gun Control in the Third Reich establishes this fact clearly, in nightmarish detail. But the final word belongs to Hitler himself, allowing that you can substitute the word “citizens” for “subject races” without changing the meaning of his rant.
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared for their own downfall is so doing.”
Carson’s detractors have an anti-gun, pro-statist axe to grind. His supporters know the truth about guns.
Didn’t we have a scholar weigh in on this recently?
That was me and sort of:
That post had to do with another post that had indicated/implied that the US Holocaust Museum did not cover Jewish armed resistance, which it does. I also dealt with, to a limited extent, the broader context there. RF’s post above is not the same thing.
I think RF’s larger point above is partially correct. Not as in its only 1/2 or a 1/4 correct, but rather as in it is one of a number of contributing factors to WW II and the Holocaust. The initial disarmament of post WW I Germany was required under the Treaty of Versailles. It was implemented in 1919, which is why JWM’s comment below about returning WW I German soldiers retaining their weapons is correct. The disarmament did not occur immediately. The Weimar Republic firearms laws from the late 1920s (1929 IIRC – could be 28) sought to address the terms from the surrender agreement at Versailles and, among other things, created a firearms registry. The 1938 NAZI revisions to the firearms law were notable for both tightening restrictions on Jewish Germans, but also loosening some of the restrictions from the Weimar law and the requirements of the Treaty of Versailles on non Jewish Germans. The loosening was not a removal, but it did make things easier in terms of firearms ownership on the majority of Germans. I have never seen anyone actually try, let alone succeed, in really quantifying and qualifying just how much easier things were and it is my understanding that it is within that context – a context of ambiguity – that the ADL issued their request to not politicize this as part of 2nd Amendment discourse in the US.
One of the reasons that what RF is addressing was one contributing factor had to do with the post conflict resolution of WW I. One of the most important considerations, and also one of the all too often overlooked, is not simply how to achieve battlefield success for conflict termination. Short answer to that is to hurt one’s opponent more and more quickly than they can hurt you so they will seek to stop fighting (find, fix in place, degrade/destroy). The harder, and often more important question, is how to not just win the war, but how to set the conditions at conflict termination to win the peace.
This was not done at the end of WW I. It is true that the Germans had imposed much deeper and more rigorous terms on their opponents in earlier conflicts, however, by the end of WW I the characteristics of war and of the global system had changed significantly enough to make the terms dictated by the Allies at Versailles an unnecessary error – even if no one really recognized that things had changed. The result is that the defeated Germans developed a belief that they had not really lost the war. This led to the development of a doltschloss/stab in the back legend. So while it is accurate to argue that the Treaty of Versailles dictated disarmament of post WW I Germany and Germans contributed to WW II and the Holocaust, it has to be recognized that this is part of a larger context that left Germany and the Germans ripe for demagoguery, the need for a scapegoat, and the desire to punish that scapegoat (eliminationism) as part of the boundary establishment and maintenance of the demagogic ideology that Hitler and the NAZIs created and put into place. And we have to remember that the effects of the Great Depression made a socio-culturally hurting and angry Germany that much more open to the influences of Hitler and NAZIism.
Okay. Great post.
I would recommend reading Soldat by Siegfried Knappe. There also was a very heavy strong economic undercurrent flowing in favor of Hitler and the Nazis.
I would recommend reading Five years, Four fronts by Georg Grossjohann. He was an East Prussian and was a Lutheran who did admit that there always was a strong undercurrent of racism for Jews.
I would recommend reading Black Edelweiss by Johann Voss who delves heavily into the political thought process of many Germans prior to and during WWII.
And that’s the difference between what RF has written above and a portion of what I wrote about last month and what Dr. Carson seems to be and others have asserted: that had Jewish Germans been able to be armed/been armed they would have been able to provide significant and meaningful resistance to the NAZIs. This latter argument comes very close to victim blaming and ignores the actual and well documented Jewish resistance that did take place.
I’ll add your suggestions to my reading list, though from your descriptions I’ve read many similar works.
Adam, I would like to chime in here on several points, starting with the last one you mentioned – blaming the victim. Yes, it is blaming the victim – and deserving the blame. We have been propagandized that victims are holy and cannot be blamed. Why? I am certainly not suggesting that a victim deserved the bad acts endured, but the victim, any victim, and any human being, must be responsible for their well being and welfare. Those of us who, collectively, put our welfare into the hands of others, the State in this case, are in fact willingly abdicating their responsibility for their welfare. In my opinion, they lose the right to complain when they get the short end of the stick. We all know the old saying that every nation has a government it deserves. When the masses were killing landlords and industrialists in the Bolshevik revolution or happily voting themselves other people’s money through “hope and change,” the results were predictable and the victims really did get what they deserved.
As to the often made point that it were the Allies’ harsh terms at Versailles that sowed the seeds of WWII. Perhaps, or, I would argue, that it was the Allies’ unwillingness to enforce the terms that really did create the conditions for the war. A victor’s terms do not have to be gentle and kind. But like any other terms, to be valid they need to be enforced. If Hitler’s march into the Rhineland had been militarily opposed, which France could have easily done, Hitler would have been eliminated by his own generals (this is a documented fact). If the drooling with appeasement France and Britain had opposed Hitler at any point up to Munich, WWII in Europe would have been very unlikely. So the real villains were not in Versailles, but in Paris and London (yes, in Berlin, too, but that Villain is evil incarnate and evil will always exist as long as good men allow it).
On the issue of civilian disarmament (again) – I am not arguing that a thousand, or even a several hundred thousand civilians armed with pistols and rifles would have been effective against the Wehrmacht. But several million lightly armed Germans, Jews included, would have been very effective against several tens of thousands of Brown Shirt thugs that were terrorizing mostly compliant Germans before they were able to terrorize they way into the “legitimate” government and control the Wehrmacht. Of course, when I say “armed civilians,” I also imply a certain attitude that those civilians must possess – independence and willingness to act in self defense and in the defense of their values. Those, unfortunately, have not been the typical traits of mostly law abiding, communal mentality Germans (including German Jews). Those few that did possess these traits emigrated to America (of yesteryear).
I think we’re using the term blaming the victims differently. As I laid out in my post last month, but only scratched the surface, is that the emancipated Jewish Germans – those who had been assimilated and considered themselves Germans who’s religion was Judaism, had no real communal tradition to fall back on here. While it is true, and very well documented, that the Jewish settlers of the Yishuv were developing an way of war and understanding of it and of armed defense, that had not happened among the Jewish communities of Germany. While there were a large number of reasons for this, one of the most important is that there was no context for one to develop. Jews in Europe, with the exception of the short lived Khuzaris, never controlled a political or social entity. As such the Judaic texts that developed in Europe only treated these subjects in a rudimentary way. Specifically they were treatments of the different types of war that the Israelites had been commanded to undertake to survive the Exodus and ultimately take the Land of Canaan. As such there was no real Jewish communal understanding and context for armed defense other than sheer survival instincts. And while sheer survival is an important driver, given that the NAZIs held their plans close and the earliest mass, violent events such as Kristallnacht were essentially domestic, blitz attack pogroms, even had some portion of Jewish Germans been armed, and we’re talking no more than 500,000 out of a population of 67 million, just how many brownshirts are going to be taken out after the store that one lives above has been firebombed in the middle of the night and the door has been kicked in?
I’m not saying they shouldn’t have fought back, and we know that some did, I am saying that the reality made an efficacy of an armed defense response highly unlikely. Even post 1941-1942 when armed Jewish resistance became much more prevalent its effectiveness was hit and miss. Those who took to the forests and engaged in partisan style irregular attacks had more success, but never made a real dent in the NAZI war effort. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was ultimately futile and short-lived. And even in the US, with a 2nd Amendment, Japanese Americans, to our national shame, were still rounded up and moved to camps out of a nativist paranoia of a Japanese fifth column. In this latter case you had a minority with a long martial history and tradition living where there was a Constitutional guarantee delineated in the 2nd Amendment. How much harder would it be then, for a minority that had faced well over a thousand years of being tolerated on the fringes, if not outright hostility and episodic attempts at elimination, in a state and society that had no equivalent Constitutional tradition or right?
As for appeasement… I think Munich has been used and abused enough. England was in no position to defend Czechoslavakia as almost all the mainstream history on the topic since the 1950s has detailed. See, for instance, Dutton’s “Neville Chamberlain” . If you’re economy is still not fully recovered from a world war that you’ve one and the Great Depression and you’re military is still in a rebuilding phase the correct strategy is to buy time. While that’s cold, if not no comfort to the Czechs and Slovaks, it was sound strategy on the part of the British. British military rearmament had only begun in 1934 and the British Navy in specific only began its rebuild in 1936. The Royal Air Force didn’t begin ramping up acquisitions until 1938. Moreover, the British military leadership was advising that it would not and could not be ready to effectively fight to stop Germany in 1938 and recommended the policy of buying time with agreeing to give Hitler Czechoslovakia. The policy was to fight Hitler in a long war, but that required a strategy that provided the time for the British military to rebuild.
Adam, we are, I believe, in agreement on many of the issues here; the disagreements being more on details. As to Munich, buying time is a sound strategy IF your strengths increase faster than your opponent’s. In this case, the historical evidence points to the fact that Germany was growing stronger faster than France and Britain. The collapse of France is one proof. The second proof is that the conquest of Poland would very likely turned to disaster for Germany had not the Soviet Union attacked and dismembered it together with Germany. In Munich, Hitler was bluffing, as he did with the retaking of the Rhineland. His own generals were ready to eliminate him should the bluff fail. France and Britain bought the bluff and solidified Hitler’s position.
As to armed self-defense of the civilians. I think that we all agree that it would not have been effective against the Wehrmacht, but armed civilians with the spirit of independence in them, may have been instrumental in preventing the Nazi thugs from coming to power in the first place. After all, the supply of thugs in the world is pretty much unlimited and, I would postulate, fairly evenly distributed. Yet such thugs have not been able to wrest control in America, although they seem to be getting closer every year. Would you agree that armed civilians may have something to do with that and that it is this danger of armed resistance that makes these thugs so determined to disarm the populace? And coming back to the original topic of Jewish resistance to the Nazi’s and the motto of “Never Again,” it would seem logical that Jewish groups, and individuals, should be promoting armed citizentry, but in fact most are rabidly against individual responsibility and prefer to trust their wellbeing to the State, ever again.
For whatever reason I can’t reply to your most recent response, so I’ve clicked on your initial one to do so.
Mu understanding is that the estimates of German military strength in the mid to late 1930s were actually being overestimated by the British. And it was based on this overestimation that the strategy of playing for time to rebuild and refit was decided upon. While we know now that Hitler was bluffing at Munich, at the time, those that had to make the difficult decisions, did not. Moreover, the British knew that they could not yet count on American support, or at least any more than the limited amounts being provided. While they were being informed this through official channels, they also were able to read the reporting for themselves that the US was going through one of its periodic cycles of nativism, xenophobia, and isolationism.
As to your question about Jewish Americans (I’m pretty sure you’re not referring to just Jews). I can’t and wouldn’t speak for an entire community, but my guess is that just like every other community within the US you’ll find its members all over the map on this issue. I don’t know of too many people – regardless of religion/faith tradition or ethnicity – that do not recognize that one has a right to self defense even though they don’t all agree on what that means. Or how it fits into larger societal norms and practices such as rule of law and criminal justice and law enforcement.
As for the phrase never again, the question is what does it really mean. Does it mean that no genocide or ethnocide should ever be permitted again? If so no one is doing very good on making it a reality as we’ve witnessed in the Balkans and Rwanda and among the Yazidis in Iraq (and this doesn’t even count the ethnic cleansing between Sunni and Shi’a in Iraq between 2005 and 2007) and countless other events. If it is only supposed to pertain to Jews, then, to be perfectly honest, I’m not sure what good the phrase really is in sort of the “if I am only for myself, what am I?” sense of things. People do amazing things under stress and extremis. Sometimes its simply self preservation, sometimes its heroism where one would have least expected it, and sometimes its the reverse – terror/fear induced inaction (I’m not really sure this is cowardice).
Adam, several points in our discussion. First, the American Jewish view on self defense, which is of current concern. Giving due credit to various Jewish organizations and individuals who do believe in active, armed self defense by each individual, that still, unfortunately, leaves the majority of American Jewish population as rabidly anti-gun and trusting to the State [to screw them again and again]. This trust to the State for ultimate protection should have been recognized as utopian even in the modern world simply by observing the events in France and elsewhere in Europe – as the Muslim population there rises and the Europeans bow to them lower and lower, violent anti-Semitism is getting more and more prevalent. No matter – the State will protect! There are a number of theories for this attitude, but the one that I believe applies the best is the ostrich syndrome – with the head in the sand, utopia is all around… That, unfortunately, seems to also apply to that “Never Again” motto; and of all sins, the one that I abhor the most is hypocrisy.
Straying away from the subject of the post, but still perhaps of interest, is the Munich debacle. You say that Chamberlain and Daladier were under impression that Hitler’s forces were stronger than they actually were. I am not familiar with the Allies’ official assessments of German strengths. I am certain that they must have been made; I do not recall Churchill bringing them up nor have I seen them in the popular literature, which in itself is strange. Could it be that the British and French cabinets asked for and interpreted the assessments in the venue that they wanted them to be, similar to Bush’s assessments of Iraq in ’03? Both countries had very strong pro-German and pro-Nazi lobbies and those are likely to have had an effect on the assessments and on the decisions. Of course, as we know now, the German Army was in fact so weak that after surrounding Polish forces outside Warsaw, their tanks were out of fuel and if it wasn’t for the Soviet attack causing the Poles to surrender, the Wehrmacht, in their Panzers, were sitting ducks. And that is when Hitler initiated the war! From 1933 to 1940 the German “war machine” was a pathetic joke, although quickly growing due to acquisitions such as the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia, with their industrial production at no cost to Hitler (plus huge quantities of raw materials from the Soviets since 1939). I think that it is safe and fair to say that French (and British) lack of opposition to the Rhineland occupation was due to lack of will, not capability.
My understanding is that the British were not self dealing/self deluding – at least not intentionally. The SIS estimates, especially of the Luftwaffe’s strength, while an undercount, where not off by much. The problem is their were competing estimates. The most conspicuous over count was actually by an SIS member who was also a Labour Member of Parliament. His estimates were close to double. Unfortunately it was not until after the war that anyone was able to actually confirm who got it right, or close to right, and who got it wrong. As Clausewitz would say: fog and friction. During the 1930s the British were pessimistic in regards to their ability to fight until they had rearmed based on their estimates. This led to the strategy of buying time. However, by 1939 the estimates had shifted to the positive and they declared war – prematurely. The resulting initial setbacks led to Chamberlain’s ouster and Churchill moving from the Admiralty to the Prime Ministership. And the French had themselves also overestimated and continued to do so all the way through their entry into the war. Unfortunately this meant that the French and the British were making the same errors, so even when they compared intel and estimates, they were just compounding each others errors.
As to your other concern – I’m not really sure how to address it. The reason we have a society, and a liberal state for governance of said society, is so that we all trade a little freedom to gain a lot more in return. Do we ever dial this in correctly? Not yet (but hope springs eternal…). I think what you’re perceiving and what many others who comment here do when they raise similar questions about a variety of states, societies, and groups within them is that by and large people are just trying to go about and get on with their lives. Its not that if push came to shove they wouldn’t defend themselves or their families, but that on a day in/day out basis they have other, immediate, pressing issues to address. I’m not looking to start a flame war, but it is exhausting to always be at the heightened level of vigilance that many claim is necessary to be able to create their own safety at all times. I’ve done and usually its been involuntarily. I worked as one of the two lead bouncers at a very large entertainment venue in Scotland when I was in grad school. I did my CQB certification training over there too. I had been attacked, in the course of my job, many times – including by a drunk nutter with an axe (my favorite Scottish party game: Axe, Axe, Who’s Got the Axe?). And I had to involve myself physically in a number of smaller, often alcohol fueled altercations in our bars, dance floors, game rooms, etc. When I graduated and came home I was constantly on edge in restaurants, bars, entertainment districts. I was hyper vigilant and it was exhausting. It took between six months to a year and a lot of willful effort to reduce my heightened sense of threat to a more manageable level. When I got back from Iraq I had less of a transition in vigilance to make, but still had to make one. And because being hyper vigilant takes up a lot of emotional and mental energy busy people, regardless of faith or ethnicity, just don’t do it, because after they do everything else they have to do every day they don’t have the energy to do so. I don’t know if this really addresses this part of your reply, but I didn’t want to just leave you hanging out there.
Adam, it is good to have these discussions, as I learn not only other people’s views, but often question and test my own premisses. I fully understand and agree with your point that many (most?) people in a civilized society simply do not wish to be constantly concerned with physical security and survival – after all, what is the point of a civilized society if one has to expect a violent attack at any moment? Certainly that explains blank and uninterested gaze in the eyes of an average citizen when this subject comes up. But why are so many people violently against any form of self defense and militantly prevent others from excercising it, if they wish to? This is not a question of apathy. For example, the subject of stocks and options bores me to death; my eyes glaze over and I become very sleepy when accousted with it. Yet, I would never fathom aggressively opposing any of my friends who invest in stocks. This militant attitude to individual self defense, especially with a gun, and the aggravated phobias that guns bring out in some people has to be explained by other means. Could those phobias and the aggresiveness be a learned response and taught by some on purpose?
I’m not sure that so many people are violently opposed to self defense as its just something they don’t normally think about. And I’d offer the informed guess that having to confront it makes them uncomfortable. Now as to trying to prevent others, militantly or even politely, from exercising it – I’m not sure this is an accurate conclusion. Rather, I think that the idea is simply something not given much consideration – and most likely for a lot of reasons.
If you read through the comments here at TTAG and then go and read websites that don’t deal with guns, but do deal with politics from a center left perspective what I think you’ll see is just two very different conversations going on. Both here and at those sites, in the comments there is a lot of anger and hyperbole expressed at the other side of the issue, but when you look at the thoughtful remarks what you’ll really see is just people talking past each other. And I don’t think the talking past each other is done maliciously – you’ve just got different experiences and different understandings of what should or shouldn’t be done. This isn’t a plea for handholding and singing rounds of kumbaya, but rather for actually listening. And before folks cry foul about we don’t negotiate rights or whatever else, that’s not what I’m suggesting.
We can actually document at least 11 different regional cultures in the US. Each of these has a number of sub-cultures within them: urban/suburban/rural; a variety of religions and ethnicities; economic subcultures, etc. Its not surprising, nor should it be, that not everyone is going to see eye to on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment or any of the other enumerated rights in the Constitution. We can’t even agree after over 200 years what the of and to clauses of the First Amendment means regarding religion. To be honest, provided we can keep hostility in check, these tensions are a good thing. It keeps us all honest. And it should make us all be aware and thinking about what these things mean and how to best implement them. Its not exciting and it doesn’t get the blood pumping, but its what the idea of self-governance that the Founders and the Framers intended for us is all about.
Adam, I can’t support your assertion that not that many people are violently opposed to self defense and specifically armed self defense. There are several vocal and well funded groups (not sure how big of a membership that they have) that exist specifically for this purpose – the Brady Campaign and Moms Against Gun Violence are perhaps most notorious, but at http://www.2acheck.com/the-boycott-list/nras-list-of-antis/ is a long list anti gun organization who do more than just avoid the subject. The subject was put prominently on center stage in last nights Democratic “debates,” err, I meant – show, while Obama has been practically jumping out of his skin to enact more and more controls and restrictions, through any legal and illigal means (Fast and Furious?) And I don’t want to be so naive as to actually believe that the issue is “saving lives,” “for the children” or other propaganda. I agree with you that for most people this subject is simply not a subject of interest, but for whom it is, the agenda seems obvious, or am I wrong?
The more I hear from Mr. Carson, the more I like him.
The sad part was, before I even looked at his points, I liked him for the sheer fact he wasn’t a politician ever. Then he had good points overal.
Ben Carson really does seem like a good man, and a true leader. The more I learn about him, the more I like him. In many ways, I consider him the AntiObama. He is black, and Ivy League educated, like the President, but is superior to him in every way imaginable.
Every “controversial statement” Carson makes is obviously and profoundly true. I also love the fact that he is a political outsider.
You have any proof that the President was “Ivy League educated” ?
The reason I ask is because nobody else has been able to provide such proof and the President himself just shrugs off questions about his background as ‘racist”.
Columbia claims him as a graduate. Do you have any evidence they’re lying?
Although (the socialist enclave of) Columbia claims him as a graduate, there doesn’t seem to be a single living eyewitness or a classmate of his. So strange, isn’t it? (especially for the “most transparent” president in history…)
More and more I’m liking Dr. Carson. These idiot talking heads keep taking his statements out of context and he sets them straight. The government fears it’s citizens when they can take up guns to oppose their tyranny. Keep it up Doctor, they are attacking you because they fear the truth.
I agree, Dr. Carson did make some statements that were soft on the 2nd amendment, however he did research on this then retracted his first thoughts. I will always respect someone who can admit when he’s wrong and learn from it.
I agree, he was squishy on gun rights at the start. I believe he has about fixed that in an unambiguous way. At this time I am wondering why the Jewish organizations are selling out?
After Carson’s poor comments, I spoke to a friend who is connected to his campaign. He made it a point to straighten him out. Hopefully, he will stay on course from now on.
The stupidity of some people gives me a headache, the top stupid thing on this was anti-freedom person stating that if the Jews would have fought back it might have gone worse for them. I don’t know how, genocide, more genocidey I dunno.
…do not go quietly into that dark night.
Obviously it’s much worse to be shot while fighting back than to be worked to death in a slave labor camp, starved, and ultimately gassed if you happen to survive that far.
I didn’t realize how big his brass ones are until he sat down on The View. I could hear them clanking over the sound of those fascist pigs clucking.
OK, this made me spit on my screen.
Not surprised that the ADL wants America disarmed.
A lot of tough European Jews lived through the Holocaust, either by surviving the horror of the camps or by going into the forests and fighting with the partisans or by joining the Allied forces. Those tough men and women ended up founding their own nation.
Meanwhile, a lot of soft American Jews have survived by forgetting the lessons of the Holocaust and collaborating with the enemy. At best, they are sonderkommandos. At worst, they are kapos.
It seems as though the attitude in Israel is different than in NYC.
Carly and Carson scares the sheet out of the Democractic Plantation overlords.
The rulers are afraid that the pair might start talking heresy such as ….
….A person should be judged by the content of their character versus the color of their skin (or the genitalia they are packing).
Carson on Prager show….
Dennis Prager asked Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson about racism in the United States. Dr. Carson’s response: “There is [a fair amount of racism in the United States], but it’s not where you would expect it to be. It’s mostly with the Progressive movement who will look at someone like me, and because of the color of my pigment, they decide that there’s a certain way that I’m supposed to think. And if I don’t think that way, I’m an ‘Uncle Tom’ and they heap all kinds of hatred on you. That, to me, is racism.”
I like Dr. Carson but I’m sceptical of his sincerity. His comments on 2A have definitely drifted to the right lately. I think he’s telling Republicans what he thinks they want to hear.
What I like about Dr. Carson is that he does give honest off the cuff responses, he was wrong on the 2nd amendment, he did research and retracted his first thoughts, I respect anyone who can admit that they are wrong and will learn from mistakes. That’s something we aren’t used to from politicians, hopefully Dr. Carson won’t become a politician, we need leaders not politicians.
In addition to Stephen Halbrook’s book you mention above, his “Target Switzerland” and “The Founders’ 2nd Amendment” are well worth a read…
Carson has been right about a lot of things, and every time the Libs have a meltdown over it. I suspect one of the main reasons is that he is an Africa American who is not pandering to every word that comes from Obama or supporting the Democratic welfare state agenda.
He is 100% correct about the disarmament of the Jews, or any populace, opening the way for a totalitarian regime to have carte blanche to do whatever it wants.
I’m a little confused then. If guns=no tyrany, then why are so many countries today having guns heavily regulated for decades without a dictator, and countries like Yemen (3rd highest gun carrying country) have them?
Here come the trolls.
Yemen is a sh!thole because it’s full of Yemenis. No other reason.
Gun-free Western Europe doesn’t have dictators because the states have reached the pinnacle of power and control, the political class rules everything and the people have been thoroughly institutionalized like little sheep. This is the model that statists have for the US.
Racism. Nice. Way to not perpetuate the stereotype.
Incorrect use of racism. Nice. Way to perpetuate and promote ignorance instead of true definitions.
Yemen is a failed state. It consists of perpetually warring tribal societies which are decidedly non-modern. Because of this, Yemen like other failed states, lacks the kind of social institutions to support effective government or any kind of government at all. Cultures can be so dysfunctional that the societies derived from them are hopelessly incapable of even a semblance of a civil society where people can feel safe and experience liberty. It is not racism to say this; it is a simple fact that non-modern societies which try to exist in the modern world are doomed.
Agreed. In addition regarding the cries of racism something should be pointed out. While the Yemen population is predominately Arab they are also Afro-Arab, South Asians and Europeans.
So it is accurate for Mr. NuttyBuddy to claim someone is racist for saying the same about the US because it is full of Americans? Or as a country do we perhaps have other races as well regardless of which is the predominant?
Far too many are ignorant of the true definition of racism and choose to use it as a go-to for things they don’t like or understand when they have run out of arguments. Who am I kidding they don’t wait very long.
Because of grossly misusing this incorrect modern definition of racism it has lost almost all of its bite. These people actually hurt address issues of real racism by perpetuating this nonsense.
What makes you think you have to have a “dictator” to have tyranny, NutButt? Conversely, if you have a “dictator” who controls a few urban areas and a largely independent populace living undisturbed in the hinterlands, how much actual ‘”tyranny” do you have? I think your “confusion” is self-inflicted.
As defined by Mirriam-Webster:
: cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others
: a government in which all power belongs to one person : the rule or authority of a tyrant
The first is totally subjective. (Ask a child whose parent just told them they cant have that candy bar)
And that’s a nice touch. Calling me NutBut.
Great Brittan in the 18th century was not a dictatorship, but its treatment of its colonies was certainly tyrannical.
Our nation, it’s constitution, and it’s Bill of Rights, were created to rid us of exactly that.
Well, you kind of asked for it with that screen name. Not sure how the abbreviation is any less potentially insulting than the full version.And providing the definition of “tyranny” supports my point more than yours, did you get that? Any type of government, not just a “dictator”, can act in a way that fits the first (which would be the primary, BTW) definition. Including, as Ralph noted, parliamentary democracies and monarchies in western Europe that have reduced their citizens to servile, government-dependent sheep.
@ Curtis: Arguably, the present government of great Britain is pretty tyrannical, depriving folks not only of the best tools for self-defense, but pretty much depriving them of the right to defend themselves at all. hich is the kind of thing I had in mind here to start with.
I did choose the word dictator. Maybe it wasn’t the best but you guys get my meaning. Monarchs can be good or bad but dictators in our minds are always bad.
Tyrannical governments can be totally subjective. Any time a government tells us not to do something we’ll feel oppressed to some degree. I was a smoker. Anti smoking laws sucked for me but were great for everyone else. Every time someone gets elected president, there’s a swarm of people from the other political party calling him a dictator. Gays want to get married. If they do, religious people are being oppressed. If they don’t, gays are.
The only real definitive litmus I’m seeing here is a dictator. And Obama isn’t Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, or anything like those in history.
if you think the only tyranny that counts as significant comes from someone who calls himself a dictator, then it’s really not worth it to debate with you.
Simple. Because Yemen is an Islamic country, and Islam is oppression. In Islam, there’s only two ways your life is run: According to Sharia law, or dead and into the ground. It doesn’t matter if everyone has guns in an Islamic state, or only the police and military have guns in an Islamic state. You’re going to have a pretty poor life, unless you’re a member of the ruling class/clan/family/bunch of imams.
Then How can we say Nazi rose to power on gun control? Why can’t we say exactly the same thing for Nazi? Is Nazi not the worst form of oppression? I can become a Muslim. I can’t turn my eyes blue or my friend turn his skin white. They Basically said “be white, heterosexual, non-jew or be dead.” If it was made possible by gun control, fine, show evidence. But the correlation between gun control in Germany does not equal causation. Countries like Yemen, Saudi Arabia have plenty of guns and oppressive governments. While countries like North Korea have no guns and oppression. They also have different religions. And when the US fought for it’s religious independence, they did so from a christian nation.
Thank you for being intelligent and civil Dyspeptic Gunsmith
Your equation is incorrect. The Second Amendment does’t say guns = no tyranny, it says that arms (guns, swords, knives, axes, etc) in the hands of the citizen is the best defense against Tyranny and other threats, Foreign and Domestic). There is no doubt guns abound in dictatorships, but just like in the book referenced about the Nazi’s rise to power, gun control was and is used to remove guns from those (Jews, Gays, Veterans, Gypsies, Yasidis, Kurds, etc) deemed by the Dictator (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, ISIS) to be a threat and give them to his thugs. Guns abound in tyrannical systems, but only in the hands of those supporters deemed worthy.
I will agree that gun control is a tool that can be used for bad purposes. But Isn’t that the argument used on the pro gun side? Guns don’t kill people. I think the real reason Western Europe and many other countries have guns regulated without incident is because it is used in smart ways. They are intelligent about it. It’s used for the purpose of protecting it’s citizens. Not to oppress them. As a result, they have far less murders and suicides.
As for the second amendment, It doesn’t use the word citizens. It says Well regulated militia. So it was always intended for some level of regulation. Times have changed and we no longer need a militia. I’m not worried about the government because I have been, and know our troops and I’m glad to say I don’t believe a one of them would turn their guns on US citizens (in fact, most would turn their guns on their commanders first). I think a big problem in the debate is when pro gun people hear “gun control” they assume the extreme and think all the guns will be gone. A few anti gun people will agree with that, but any rational person wouldn’t have a problem with a hunting rifle. But any halfway dimwitted person can tell you and I shouldn’t have a nuclear weapon. The question is, where is the line? It must be moved because hundreds people are dying every week.
There are no home invaders? no thugs? Did we become a society with no criminals in the last half hour?
Are there no corrupt officials? no power-hungry bureaucrats? Did we get a government of angels yesterday, and no one told me?
Has the country no enemies? are there no foreigners who wish us harm? Did all governments and organizations become saints this last week?
You say of course we have those? Then you concede that the militia is as necessary as ever.
To say that the militia is obsolete is to say that the responsible citizen, eager for the safety and security of kin and country, is obsolete.
The SCOTUS has ruled that “well regulated militia” was intended to include all American citizens.
Why am I not surprised at your inability to comprehend what you read? The grammatical structure of the second amendment is not difficult.
The right to keep and bear arms applies not to “a well regulated militia”, but rather to the people. Being well regulated (i.e. well-trained/disciplined) applies not to the people, but to the militia.
Are you seriously saying the militia is still in effect? Check history. The war of 1812 showed they were outdated. After that they were basically only used by southern states to round up runaway slaves. But I think we can all envision them as being closer to lynch mobs than the men who fought the English. It had a small part in the civil war but now it has basically been replaced by the draft.
Besides, the constitution is designed to change. We’ve done it once or twice now. The founding fathers knew 1. Times will change, and 2. They are flawed human beings who may have been wrong about some things.
Per the CFR: yes, the militia still exists.
And feel free to begin the process of anending the constitution with respect to the wording of the second amendment. I wish you luck – and I remind you that the right to keep and bear arms is not created by the second amendment; it is merely protected by it.
Are you seriously going to say the grammatical structure of the second amendment isn’t that complicated and then say it says something it doesn’t? Then why doesn’t it say that? Why was it so hard for them to say “Militias should be well trained but regular people don’t need to be.” Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a stupid person or so amart he used cryptic language.
We were having an intelligent conversation here. If you can’t/won’t read the amendment as it is literally written don’t join in. You won’t sway anyone to your side by twisting things. Crap like that is why I move farther away from being pro gun.
Well, then: Bye, Felicia. Learn to parse grammar at least at an elementary school level.
It doesn’t say, “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
It says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
“The people” are referred to elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. It means the same thing in the 2nd Amendment.
And by the way, Thomas Jefferson didn’t write it.
Missed again, Nutty. The 2nd Amendment uses the words “the people” when it specifies who the right to keep and bear arms belongs to. It’s pretty plain English: “the right of _the People_ to keep and bear arms…” Someone so handy with Miriam-Webster should be able to catch that.
1. Yes, actually, most states do still have a militia clause in their constitution that allows for the citizenry to be considered a militia for the purposes of fulfilling the 2nd Amendment. Virginia certainly does.
2. If you are moving away from being pro-gun, then please feel free to do so and go on down to Hillary and Obama land, drink lattes with your friends at the Gun Free Zone of Starbucks, and please sell your guns, assuming you have any, so they can go to honest patriots and not be defiled by being in the hands of someone who will probably turn them in to the next Liberal sponsored police buy-back program.
There you have it. Just cut out the entire first part to fit your needs. It’s nice that, if I want to say we shouldn’t have guns, all I have to do is quote the second amendment literally in its entirety. If you want to support guns, you have to cut out the first part, or paraphrase. Why is it the second amendment needs to be explained “well what he meant was” but no other part of the constitution or its amendments requires this?
And what was the militia made up of? People. A little historical context and it makes sense.
Doubling down on stupid?
The second clause is the independent clause. The right of the individual to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon the existence or utility of the militia. Rather, the ability of a well-regulated (ie trained, prepared) militia to ensure the security of a free state depends upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed.
Seriously, diagramming the sentence structure of the second amendment is sixth grade-level grammar.
As for the second amendment, It doesn’t use the word citizens. It says Well regulated militia.
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
Co-author of the Second Amendment
Uhh, Nutty, do you read what you write? Yes, the people make up the militia. That’s why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed–so that, should the need arise to form them up into a militia they will have arms. Of their own. Not issued by the State. Get it? As for this “no other amendment is this hard to explain” stuff–well, have you been living under a rock all your life? Over 200 years after the 4th and 5th were written, the courts are still wrangling over exactly what they mean. And are still wrangling over what the 14th means, have been ever since it was adopted. You really need to get out more or something.
The militia is every able bodied person. Classically it was men, but now it is all of us normal citizens. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people is protected by the people. That is the core of the Second Amendment. Our defense is our responsibility.
“As for the second amendment, It doesn’t use the word citizens. It says Well regulated militia. So it was always intended for some level of regulation.”
Now we can test if you are intellectually honest. I *really* hope you are, but I have doubts.
Pick up a dictionary from the era when The Bill Of Rights was written (The late 1700’s).
Look up the word ‘regulate’.
The gist of the definition is “properly operating”, *not* ‘rules and regulations’.
I can prove that is the definition.
The most accurate clock of that era were known as ‘Tall Clocks’, we know them today as ‘Grandfather Clocks’.
They operate on the principal of a pendulum to keep time. The weight on the bottom of the pendulum is held on by a threaded nut. You tighten the nut and the weight rises slightly and the clock runs faster.
Loosen that nut and the weight goes lower and the clock slows down.
The name of that nut is the ‘regulator’. Look at tall clock paperwork from that era and see.
“A well-regulated milita…” translation: “A milita that knows how to shoot their rifles accurately, being necessary for a free state,…” etc.
You have to read the Bill of Rights using the meaning of the words AS THEY WERE WRITTEN AT THE TIME THAT DOCUMENT WAS WRITTEN.
You are wasting your time. NuttyButt is troll that tries to squeeze in undetected pretending to want a “reasonable” discussion. The references to “reasonable” and “common sense,” as well as the talking points of the Constitution being a dated document are a dead give away.
Thank you for being intelligent and civil Desert Ranger Tycho
It was illegal for a black person to own guns in most of the United States for most of this countries history. Gun confiscation occurred regularly when it was learned blacks had guns after slave revolts. The klu klux klan was the first organized group to have as part of its mission to disarm the newly freed slaves.
The rest of america had guns to fight against criminal gangs even gangs hired by local governments such as the Montana range wars. It seems you can have freedom and tyranny at the same time.
Read the Dred Scott decision carefully about blacks and guns.
I have read it many years ago. I wish more people the words of supreme Court justice Roger B Taney. They would learn the origin of gun control in America.
I tell people to read Dred Scott carefully as well. Because when one does, we see two things:
1. Tons of talk about how blacks can’t be people… but in the habit of people who have very shaky philosophical groundings for their positions (yet, legally airtight – Dred Scott is a legally tight decision while being thoroughly philosophically repugnant), the real justification for the decision comes all the way near the end – ie, the bury the lead. And that justification buried near the end is “prevent blacks from owning guns.”
2. If we flip Dred Scott over, however, there’s no question that Taney thought the Second Amendment recognized an individual right. Not a collective right, but an individual one – because if it were a collective right, the government could simply have prevented blacks from joining militias and the armed forces. No, Taney saw the Second as an individual right, and he had to deny sovereignty to blacks in order to disallow them from owning guns.
When I pointed this out in the 90’s to liberals (this was pre-Heller) who were arguing the “collective” theory, their heads would explode. It would be amusing to watch them realize that the notion of which rights were individual and due every citizen of the US were laid out very carefully in Dred Scott.
If I’m not mistaken, the ADL has always been a gang of screaming leftists. I’m not surprised at their attitude toward guns and history.
Actually, their history is a bit more complicated than that. Check out the activities of the ADL during the hunts for communist starting before WWII. They dimed out many a commie in their day.
Thanks for the info–that’s why I inserted the qualifier. Since I have heard of them, they seem to pretty much fall in with the lefty causes.
They do – since Abe Foxman has been at the helm, they’ve been the usual bunch of reliable tools for the left.
In their early days, however, the ADL dimed out so many commies to the Feds it wasn’t remotely funny for the commies. In the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s, they were as pro-American a group as could be found.
The left began their “long march through the institutions” with these private-sector political groups early on.
Ben Carson is still loony tunes – and it was much more then simply disarming Jews that led to the holocaust. I’m very skeptical that it wouldn’t have happened anyway even if the Nazis didn’t disarm all the Jews. It certainly wouldn’t have happened as easily. We actually disarmed the German people after WW1. That’s why you see videos of them drilling with shovels and various other tools. The allied powers disarmed the German people after WW 1 and it was seen as one of the principle insults that helped the rise of the Third Reich.
I tend to ignore people who think the earth is 10,000 years old, was made in its current form -as well as humans.
There is a different between politically incorrect and raving lunatic, Ben Carson is the latter. He is a case study in Godwin’s Law and his constant comparison of the U.S. to Nazi Germany is simply idiotic. Not only idiotic but insulting to my family members who actually lived and died in Nazi Germany.
Yes, he’s a lunatic. While he was saving the lives of countless children and adults, a sound thinker such as yourself was doing . . . . Wait, what were you doing? Did it involve Crisco?
We read different history books. The german soldiers of ww1 were allowed to march back into germany bearing arms. The unrest and upheavel that followed the end of the war had bands of soldiers and non soldiers vying for power in the streets and they looked well armed in the pictures.
his constant comparison of the U.S. to Nazi Germany is simply idiotic.
I think you should read the Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff.
Mother jones.com just did a hatchet job on Ben Carson titled “Ben Carson’s Love Affair With a “Nutjob” Conspiracy Theorist”. It is revealing. BC also has at least 6 medical malpractice cases to reckon with and some of the circumstances are clearly violations of medical ethics, the patients’ & families’ directives; leaving a surgical sponge in a patient’s brain, cutthroat out too much brain stem against family/patient choice & leaving the patient paralyzed & in constant ago zing pain.
Last year I watched him self-destruct on TV when he claimed that male prisoners naturally adopted homosexuality due to environmental constraints and would revert to heterosexual life after being released.
He’s a Seventh-Day Adventist, the same as my family; I rejected organized religion at age 13 but am very familiar with their work. They for the most part very genuine people and BC has always been a bright aspect of SDA life, in addition to their strict vegetarian diets & no- alcohol habits contributing to their having a 10% longer life expectancy. But Adventists can also be universally ignorant in certain subjects; try to talk cosmology, pre-history (e.g.: dinosaurs, etc.) with an SDA “scientists” like my Ph.D. brother in law and you’ll run up against the “5,000 year-old earth” belief. They honestly believe that “a” Catholic Pope will be the actual “beast” from the bible, the Devil himself. Really! I’m a lifelong witness to this. They believe that when we die, we’re “asleep in Christ” until resurrection when we’ll see our dearly departed again – the ones who are worthy of being saved. They think the Pope was going to push for America to implementation “Sunday Laws” and this will be they Sign of The End Of Days. Really. Religious freedom suspended, martial law, head for the hills. They are “end times” obsessed and having read volumes of Sci-Fi, know that world leaders predisposed to look forward to the world’s end are in the right position to hasten it to reality.
I thought having an idiot ex-coke addicted alcoholic in the White House was hard enough on the world, but having a president whose religious beliefs are so strongly contrary to known physics, psychology and science is too troubling to ignore.
For the most part SDA people are pretty decent and they help a LOT of people, both locally and internationally building schools in primitive areas where they proselytize.
But they are all human and suffer from the same character flaws that anyone can, and knowing what I have learned so far, as an informed citizen I believe that BC as POTUS would be a very risky option and an adventure I would rather not see us subjected to.
having a president whose religious beliefs are so strongly contrary to known physics, psychology and science is too troubling to ignore
Was he acting contrary to science when he was doing brain surgery? Speaking of which, you might want to consider some.
interesting that you refer to an article as a “hatchet job” and then go on to tout it as authoritative. I expect that the first description is the most accurate.
When it comes to politicians, give me all the hatchet jobs you can throw my way. ANYONE trying to take political power needs to be made to squirm, suffer, and otherwise curse their life and hate the very day they were born. We would honestly do better if government positions were filled via lottery.
When it comes to the SDA’s I find that their persecution complex gets in the way of any form of reason and bleeds over their entire doctrine. They are right about Rome being evil, wrong about what form it will take. They are right about Saturday worship being nothing but a Roman decree, wrong about “Sunday Laws.” The ultra-young Earth doesn’t hold up to any serious scrutiny by the creation-research people, let alone the dogmatic othrodoxy currently gatekeeping the halls of science.
“Last year I watched him self-destruct on TV when he claimed that male prisoners naturally adopted homosexuality due to environmental constraints and would revert to heterosexual life after being released.”
Actually all the studies about overcrowding using rats have suggested EXACTLY this. And so does the anecdotal evidence from prisoners themselves. Of both genders.
Ben ‘ I support mandatory vaccines’ Carson. No thanks.
Very mature ladies, very mature – be sure to hold your breath & stomp your feet so the image of a spoiled brat is complete.
I see you are going with the “a lie told often enough, becomes the truth” gambit. You never know, it might work this time around.
I like Ben Carson-I just don’t think he would make a good president.Remember “outsider” Jimmy Carter? Check out Bens 2 versions of 2A before he got “religion”. I also have a big problem with Adventism. To ME they are just on the very edge of protestant belief. Saving children and transplanting hearts is much more honorable than politics…Ted Cruz for president. Or the Supremes.
I also have a big problem with Adventism. To ME they are just on the very edge of protestant belief. Most certainly their doctrines do not agree with Martin Luther’s Small Catechism.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” -Alexander Solzhenitsyn, from THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO
If it would have worked on Stalin’s goons, how would Hitler’s goons be any different?
Dr. Carson was right, resistance would not have been futile.
Thanks, Mr. Fleas, for bringing Archipelag Gulag to mind. I only have the first volume (YMCA Press, Paris, in Russian, 1st edition), yet read the others. What an astounding and brave communication of the horrors that occurred. Ignorance and cowardice in the masses, and their lack of weapons, can indeed permit the establishment of an irresistible tyranny. It is ever and always a dream of the day’s most powerful factions that the ordinary folks be disarmed. What the powerful who wish for a thorough governing of the others need is confidence that when they impose the harshest and most enslaving provisions….the ordinary folks can’t shoot back. It seems to me always better for humanity if they can. Thanks again.
You’re welcome. I wish everyone read that book.
It would be truly epic to replace the current black president, who is an embarrassment to the concepts of black and human, with a real man like Ben Carson…
Hitler knew exactly what he was doing, his plans worked quite well, one of which was snatching firearms. It was one step in a multi-step plan but a necessary one.
I felt Carson’s discussion got him into what I call Trump-land whereas he got to feel what it was like to take a strong position and get unjustly whipped by the progressive MSM..
The political leadership in the anti gun freedom movement are godless reform jews. I know saying this is not P/C. But it is true. Why is it that white jewish people want to keep guns in the hands of only government authorities?
The Jewish defense league and the jews for the preservation of firearms ownership think differently than Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer. It seems many jewish leaders want to change America to the society their grandparents ran away from. Europe is a place where individual freedom does not exist. That is why America was founded. Here a surf could buy land. Not so in the old country. There a surf got only what was given to them.
Almost like welfare in america. And if you are on welfare and in public housing you can’t have a gun. You have to wait for your overseer to come to your aid.
It is lazy on the part of Dr Carson critics to attack his faith or, his race, instead of addressing what he is talking about. Surveys have shown black people’s attitudes are becoming more pro second amendment. Black leadership like chief Craig in Detroit have changed they way black citizens think about using righteous violence to defend themselves.
The most scary thing in America is a black man with a gun. In the intolerant bigoted minds of Dr Carson’s critics that is what he represents.
Serfs in the surf.
I don’t know if being armed would have helped the german jews or any other of europes jews at that time. But it couldn’t have gone any worse for them being armed than it did being unarmed.
I would like the option to fight back. Whether I succeed or not isn’t really the point.
I have never heard anyone claim that gun control caused the holocaust including this guy. The very reasonable claim I hear repeated is that it made it easier and as he indicated this was not an isolated case by a government before oppressing/killing its people. Not by a long shot. Someone that doesn’t believe that needs to study just a little bit of history if they have the capacity to think past the way things should be in their present version of the world.
Yet even though he didn’t make that claim it was repeatedly the headline I read from our unbiased, integrity first, holy grail of free press. Yeah that was hard to write even in jest and I burped up a little stomach acid in the process.
Anyone who doesn’t think guns would have made a difference to the Jews of Europe should read about the Bielski brothers of Belarussia.
There is one hole to poke in all of this that I believe speaks to the MUCH larger problem in that gun confiscation was successful. By that I mean the authorities grabbed as many as they could find and the population hid the rest and kept their head down. Even if gun ownership had been one Thompson/BAR per household it wouldn’t have mattered because the population rolled over instead of actually USING what they had. This is the case almost every time throughout history.
Except here. The Revolution. The War Over Southern Secession. The Battle of Athens, TN. Bundy Ranch was a second Lexington-Concord, proof that the American will to shoot the king’s men is not quite dead, yet. And DC doesn’t know what to do about it because they can’t trust the military to side with them.
The black rifle culture is America’s only hope, and that means Oath Keepers need every supporter and volunteer they can get, and that outreach to the military is actually our most powerful weapon. The time is coming that they will decide America’s fate.
Gun control and Nazism are like gelatin and water. You need both in order for either to turn into a worthwhile dessert.
I’ll never, ever understand how Jewish people are proportionally higher on the antigun and fascist side of things. It’s like black culture being proportionally higher for dependency and self enslavement. Carson’s right on the money.
Antis readily dismiss the need for armed citizens to fight off a tyrannical government. They say the chance of that happening is so remote it’s a weak argument by 2Aers. The fact is Americans love their freedom, are armed and capable of defending it. Anyone in government has to think twice before doing infringing on that freedom in the slightest.
Yes, I think the antis underestimate the power of an American revolutionary doctrine as old as the incident at Concord:
“Shoot the leaders!”
21st century Jew??
No they won’t allow that again but the next class of victim might be the gun owners. Oh, they all ready have around the world with the U.S.A. still fighting the good fight for freedom. Some of the disarmed people murdered by the governments of the world, Christians Rome, Jews Nazi Germany, Aztecs Spanish, Maori of NZ and Aboriginals Australia, Chinese, Scottish William Wallace, the Irish, Welsh by English and the Native America by the US government. THIS is why we need guns to protect ourselves from those who would subject us to their whim and if this is not enough just google dictators.
There are over 400 gun laws on the books and they have done nothing to stop the violence. Because of the winey few we are chastised for wanting to protect ourselves. We NEED guns to protect ourselves from criminals in and out of the government. I deserve the right to protect myself and if you don’t like it tough $hit.
The 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution so the people could protect themselves from a corrupt government. That is why it says “shall not infringe” so we can have what the government has to prevent a Holocaust. I believe the people should have what the government has including machine guns. The only gun control law there should be is that criminals can’t have any firearms. No double standards put DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com
I always was interested in this topic and still am, thanks for posting.
This design is steller! You most certainly know how to
keep a reader entertained. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well,
almost…HaHa!) Excellent job. I really enjoyed what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it.