patrick.net

leo707 says

We don't need more people rampaging around in home built tanks, but we do need more people who don't let the system abuse people

It isn't possible when people up top make all the decisions and enforce them selectively for their own benefit.

Joe Stack was a crazy man, and I'm not defending his method, but he sure had some valid points about our government being an old boys club.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

I would happily accept the argument that the Second Amendment protects us from the illegal actions of the police if I say this happen. And there's opportunities for this to happen every single freaking day.

I bet it happens and happens a lot, and when it does it isn't reported same way on the news. News have to be politically correct, approved by the government and the state if they don't want trouble.

So even if someone defends themselves, will promptly be labeled a criminal or a murderer and sent off to prison or executed.

If people indeed are using guns to defend themselves from police "a lot", but still being sent to prison/executed then the Second Amendment does not matter. Ultimately their guns did not protect them from tyranny, and they could have done the same thing with an "illegal" gun.

leo707 says

If people indeed are using guns to defend themselves from police "a lot", but still being sent to prison/executed then the Second Amendment does not matter. Ultimately their guns did not protect them from tyranny, and they could have done the same thing with an "illegal" gun.

But Leo, that is like saying that guns didn't really protect Jews from Nazi's so they had no reason to have guns. And as you know Nazi's did make it illegal for Jews to have guns, only government officials had the right or those "with good cause approved by the government".

FortWayne says

But Leo, that is like saying that guns didn't really protect Jews from Nazi's so they had no reason to have guns. And as you know Nazi's did make it illegal for Jews to have guns, only government officials had the right or those "with good cause approved by the government".

It took a huge military effort to stop the Nazi movement. Nazi Germany rolled over armies with a lot more hardware and resources than rifles and pistols. There were very large and organized resistance movements all over occupied Europe. While helpful none of the resistance movements (or all combine) would have brought about an end to the Nazi machine. Without external help they all would have eventually been ground down.

I am not sure that the Jews being allowed to have guns, and thus increasing the size of the Jewish resistance, would have had that big of an effect on the outcome.

And this is all before smart bombs, drones and spy satellites.

FortWayne says

leo707 says

We don't need more people rampaging around in home built tanks, but we do need more people who don't let the system abuse people

It isn't possible when people up top make all the decisions and enforce them selectively for their own benefit.

Joe Stack was a crazy man, and I'm not defending his method, but he sure had some valid points about our government being an old boys club.

I more or less agree, but I don't see the Second Amendment ever being a solution to this problem.

FortWayne says

News have to be politically correct, approved by the government and the state if they don't want trouble.

Not RT News.

leo707 says

It took a huge military effort to stop the Nazi movement.

It took the combined forces of all the rest of the industrial world except Italy and Japan to stop the Nazis. Militias wouldn't have cut it.

leo707 says

I am not sure that the Jews being allowed to have guns, and thus increasing the size of the Jewish resistance, would have had that big of an effect on the outcome.

It would have made a difference. Would have made it harder for government to round Jews up by the thousand to send them to concentration camps. Stalinists' wouldn't be able to do their ethnic cleansing either if they didn't disarm civilian population. George Orwell wrote some real good papers and books about it at that time.

Human history is full of examples where morality fails and government disarms civilians followed by mass murder and mass oppression. I don't think we as a nation are that different, any nation can fall into that trap. Disarming civilian population is usually the first step, using police or military to enforce other oppressive decisions isn't hard where obedience is easy to obtain.

Dan8267 says

It took the combined forces of all the rest of the industrial world except Italy and Japan to stop the Nazis. Militias wouldn't have cut it.

Didn't Hitler loosen Gun restrictions? I think the whole premise is based on a lie.

Makes for cute bumper stickers though!

Gun restrictions were loosened before Hitler took power; the Nazis added new ones (mainly targeting jews).

FortWayne says

Human history is full of examples where morality fails and government disarms civilians followed by mass murder and mass oppression.

And history is also full of examples where governments disarmed civilians and did not then commit mass murder or "extraordinary" mass oppression.

FortWayne says

Would have made it harder for government to round Jews up by the thousand to send them to concentration camps. Stalinists' wouldn't be able to do their ethnic cleansing either if they didn't disarm civilian population.

The thing is that people don't know that they are being rounded up to go do a death camp. Do you really think that the Jews would have used their guns to resist going to what they thought was merely a prison camp? Sure it would have been a little harder later after people began to suspect what was going on, but I don't think that the increase (yes there was a Jewish resistance movement) it would have given to the Jewish resistance fighters would have effected the outcome. Yes, they would have been more helpful, but they probably would not have equaled the effectiveness of the largest resistance movements of WWII.

We rounded up Japanese during WWII and treated them pretty bad. Do you think that the Japanese Americans would have been better off if they had fought tooth and nail to avoid going to the camps? Did we disarm them before announcing the war relocation camps?

leo707 says

but I don't think that the increase (yes there was a Jewish resistance movement) it would have given to the Jewish resistance fighters would have effected the outcome.

Armed resistance makes that a lot harder. Consider the war in the middle east? Soviets lost a war in Afghanistan because of the well armed rebels. And today US is stuck there for years and years because a standing Army can't fight vs guerrilla warfare.

Any resistance is better than outright submissiveness.

You can't force thousand of well armed people against their will onto the train to a death camp.

leo707 says

We rounded up Japanese during WWII and treated them pretty bad. Do you think that the Japanese Americans would have been better off if they had fought tooth and nail to avoid going to the camps? Did we disarm them before announcing the war relocation camps?

During WW2 it was the Japanese, who says next election it won't be other Americans based on their party affiliation especially if economy gets really bad and government can lay blame onto liberals or conservatives or whomever is convenient...?

IDDQD says

CL says

Didn't Hitler loosen Gun restrictions?

Yes he did. But not for Jews.

1938 German Weapons Act. Jews were prohibited, Nazi party members exempted from regulations. The rest is pretty much a copy of current CA gun laws.

FortWayne says

You can't force thousand of well armed people against their will onto the train to a death camp.

Yeah, if you call it a "death camp." No one runing a death camp call it that. It is always a "war relocation camp", "refugee camp", etc.

FortWayne says

Armed resistance makes that a lot harder. Consider the war in the middle east? Soviets lost a war in Afghanistan because of the well armed rebels. And today US is stuck there for years and years because a standing Army can't fight vs guerrilla warfare.

Remind me again who was it that armed Osama Ben Laden when he was fighting the Soviets? Afghan fighters had the capability of destroying just about any piece of Soviet hardware.

Sure, and as soon as American Citizens can be well armed (you know stuff that would actually destroy/disable an Apache, Abrams tank, drone, stealth aircraft, etc.) then you may have an argument. These days a bunch of semi-automatic AR-15s, 12 gauges, and .38 specials are just not going to cut it. Also, the most militant Americans seem to want to make things easy and convenient for any oppressive government wanting to take their guns and they round themselves up in a nice convenient location.

FortWayne says

During WW2 it was the Japanese, who says next election it won't be other Americans based on their party affiliation especially if economy gets really bad and government can lay blame onto liberals or conservatives or whomever is convenient...?

So, do you think that the Japanese would have been better off fighting tooth and nail to resist being taken to war relocation camps?

Aside from the rhetoric you see on the interwebs,

There's this:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/22692/hitler-gun-control-facts-u-s-pro-gun-advocates-have-more-in-common-with-hitler-than-they-thinkIDDQD says

Yes he did. But not for Jews.

That speaks more to antisemitism than gun control, right?

"Hitler, then, came into power when this regulation was in effect … so, yes, Hitler, by default, did have a gun control policy — but only because it was forced on Germany.

Remember how the Hitler Youth were trained to march not with rifles but with shovels? This was a result of the Treaty of Versailles, not a Hitler policy."

http://propagandaprofessor.net/2011/09/26/the-myth-of-hitlers-gun-ban/

And the truth is that no gun law was passed in Germany in 1935. There was no need for one, since a gun registration program was already in effect in Germany; it was enacted in 1928, five years before Hitler’s ascendancy. But that law did not “outlaw” guns, it just restricted their possession to individuals who were considered law-abiding citizens, and who had a reason to own one. And there’s no reason to consider that law particularly significant, either; the NAZIs didn’t seize control of their own country with gunpowder. They used a much more potent weapon: propaganda.

Under their reign, Jews were prohibited from owning guns, just as they were prohibited from doing many things. And it has become an article of faith among the gun culture that had they been armed, the Holocaust would not have happened (that is, among those members of the gun culture who know that the Holocaust really did happen). But the concept of a handful of citizens armed with hunting rifles and Saturday night specials fending off an army is delusional hubris peculiar to gun addicts. On American soil, its most glorious day in the sun has been perhaps Waco. And we all know how well that turned out.

leo707 says

So, do you think that the Japanese would have been better off fighting tooth and nail to resist being taken to war relocation camps?

That's probably better asked of those who were affected by that. Grandparents do tend to pass on learned wisdom to their children and grand children. I can't really speak for anyone there as I did not live there at that time. In my view, resistance by Jews would have been better, at least they'd survive better than they did.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/hitler-stalin-gun-control

"But guns didn't play a particularly important part in any event," says Robert Spitzer, who chairs SUNY-Cortland's political science department and has extensively researched gun control politics. Gun ownership in Germany after World War I, even among Nazi Party members, was never widespread enough for a serious civilian resistance to the Nazis to have been anything more than a Tarantino revenge fantasy. If Jews had been better armed, Spitzer says, it would only have hastened their demise. Gun policy "wasn't the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights, and they were a minority group."

It sounds as though the gun laws were in place and encouraged by anti-Nazis, rather than Nazis.

Why did the Hitler Youth practice with shovels?

As World War I drew to a close, the new Weimar Republic government banned nearly all private gun ownership to comply with the Treaty of Versailles and mandated that all guns and ammunition "be surrendered immediately." The law was loosened in 1928, and gun permits were granted to citizens "of undoubted reliability" (in the law's words) but not "persons who are itinerant like Gypsies." In 1938, under Nazi rule, gun laws became significantly more relaxed. Rifle and shotgun possession were deregulated, and gun access for hunters, Nazi Party members, and government officials was expanded. The legal age to own a gun was lowered. Jews, however, were prohibited from owning firearms and other dangerous weapons.

leo707 says

wanting to take their guns and they round themselves up in a nice convenient location.

That is hilarious!

From the Citadel link:

"Marxists, Socialists, Liberals and Establishment Republicans will likely find that life in our community is incompatible with their existing ideology and preferred lifestyles."

Is that Glenn Beck's Libertypendence park?

Nobody but nutters need apply!

CL says

Is that Glenn Beck's Libertypendence park?

No! It is another walled bastion of freedom that refuses entrance to anyone who does not have the same beliefs. It is a wonderful sign of the times when people think they need to wall themselves of from other Americans that have differing political opinions.

leo707 says

CL says

Is that Glenn Beck's Libertypendence park?

No! It is another walled bastion of freedom that refuses entrance to anyone who does not have the same beliefs. It is a wonderful sign of the times when people think they need to wall themselves of from other Americans that have differing political opinions.

So it's a Burbclave with HOA god-complex.

Nothing crazy here except the douchebag thinking it'll ever get built.

Vicente says

Nothing crazy here except the douchebag thinking it'll ever get built.

Yeah, unlikely that it will ever get built, and even less likely that Glenn Beck would actually live there.

The nutbar didn't think big enough, like Idaho survivalists:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/06/survivalist-group-wants-to-build-medieval-style-fortress-in-idaho-residents-would-be-required-to-own-weapons/

Because you know, the ravaging Mad Max hordes will target Idaho, it's obvious!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq_B_ukrGKo

IDDQD says

Dan8267 says

Not RT News.

You are aware that it's fully funded by Russian federal budget?

Yes, I'm also aware that the news is true, accurate, and far better than anything on American T.V. Like it or not, RT News in Washington is extremely good news regardless of where its funding comes from. You cannot say the same about Fox, CNN, or MSNBC, especially fucking Fox.

FortWayne says

It would have made a difference. Would have made it harder for government to round Jews up by the thousand to send them to concentration camps.

What about the Japanese Americans? They had guns. Didn't stop America from rounding them up and putting them in deplorable concentration camps during WWII all while stealing their property including land, property they never, ever got back. And some of those victims are still alive, have guns, and have no way of getting compensation.

leo707 says

We rounded up Japanese during WWII and treated them pretty bad. Do you think that the Japanese Americans would have been better off if they had fought tooth and nail to avoid going to the camps?

You got to that example before me. Great minds think alike.

FortWayne says

today US is stuck there for years and years because a standing Army can't fight vs guerrilla warfare.

America is stuck there for years and years because there is no such thing as a winning condition or an exit strategy. And why should there be. As long as the war continues, the CIA, the DHS, DARPA, Lockheed Martin, and all the other war profiteers continue to make money.

Accomplishing victory and restoring peace makes as much sense to these war profiteers as a single pill that satisfies everyone's hunger for the rest of time makes to McDonald's.

leo707 says

So, do you think that the Japanese would have been better off fighting tooth and nail to resist being taken to war relocation camps?

If they did that, there would be no Japanese Americans today. They would have been slaughter like every other American who has ever stood up against the government, even a local government, in American history.

Read about the Ludlow Massacre. It's the textbook example of the ordinary citizens fighting against government in America.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/XDd64suDz1A

Armed civilians have never, ever, ever worked in the entire history of America, but when the theoretical fall of America into fascism occurs, somehow this strategy that has always failed is going to work.

Dan8267 says

What about the Japanese Americans? They had guns. Didn't stop America from rounding them up and putting them in deplorable concentration camps during WWII all while stealing their property including land, property they never, ever got back.

First off, nothing deplorable and certainly nothing like the Soviet, German or Italian camps by the enemy. As for Japanese concentration camps in Asia.. none! they simply butchered everyone that came their way.

Frankly like the German-American camps.. they did far better during the war than others did.

And property wasnt confiscated, but asked could be sold to friends or transfered to friends and later claimed back.

You forget, we had Japanese-American troops in Europe.

thomaswong.1986 says

First off, nothing deplorable and certainly nothing like the Soviet, German or Italian camps by the enemy. As for Japanese concentration camps in Asia.. none! they simply butchered everyone that came their way.

I didn't say the American concentration camps were the same as the Nazi ones, but they certainly were deplorable. To argue anything otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of history, something that's easily rectify by going to a museum with an exhibit on this atrocity.

Dan8267 says

but they certainly were deplorable.

another ridiculous statement now calling it atrocity..
like WTF do you call Auschwitz.. if not an atrocity.

and now your equating both..

thomaswong.1986 says

And property wasnt confiscated, but asked could be sold to friends or transfered to friends and later claimed back.

Bull-fucking-shit. I work on land that used to be a Japanese farm. It was confiscated during WWII and never given back to the rightful owners, who were impoverished. An entire colony of Japanese farmers were evicted from the land and it was used by the Army Air Forces for radar trading.

The land was never returned to the Japanese. It later became the IBM site where the first PCs were built and OS/2 developed. Today it's a commercial park. I know the history and you are just wrong when you say that the American government did not steal land from Japanese Americans during WWII.

thomaswong.1986 says

another ridiculous statement now calling it atrocity..

like WTF do you call Auschwitz.. if not an atrocity.

and now your equating both..

thomaswong, you are the most retarded person on this site. Comparing one atrocity to another and saying one is worse therefore the other isn't an atrocity at all is just plain stupid.

Furthermore, I'm not equating those two things. I stating that the American concentration camps for Japanese Americans were in themselves an atrocity and utterly deplorable. It was completely racist and inhuman. There were no "German-American" camps. It was pure fucking racism. And the fact that this was done to American citizens is completely unforgivable. And the fact that the victims, some of whom are still alive today, are still not compensated for this crime is deplorable.

Finally, my point that things would have ended far worse for these people had they been heavily armed still stands.

If you want to have a real debate, you need to stop making Straw Men.

http://www.umwa.org/?q=content/ludlow-massacre

I love the part when the government takes the atrocity it committed and tries to mitigate its role by turning the site of the massacre into a "historic landmark" as if that makes the state the good guy again.

Dan8267 says

I know the history and you are just wrong when you say that the American government did not steal land from Japanese Americans during WWII.

no .. you are wrong. and you only give an example of confiscation of one piece of land due to the war which happen to been by Japanese owners. There was no wide govt policy which would indicate all Japanese property was confiscated.

BullShit on you !

There were other nations that also interned the Japanese.. all for good reasons.

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

Dan8267 says

There were no "German-American" camps

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

German American Internment refers to the detention of German and German-American citizens in the United States during World War I and World War II. Unlike the Japanese Americans who were interned during World War II, these internees have never received an apology or reparations

Dan8267 says

Ludlow Massacre

pack your bags and leave CO if you didnt like what was going on.

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, I'm not equating those two things.

what do you call Auschwitz but an atrocity.. you have a different word you use ?