PolitiFact | No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust

[safetyfirst2125]

The argument is that Jews had already had their homes raided anyway and had been shipped off to gas chambers, so had gun confiscation not happened, they still would have stood no chance against the Nazis.

f*** these people.

This is how is “Never Again” gets forgotten.

PolitiFact | No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust

No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust

On March 13, 2018, gun control activists laid 7,000 pairs of shoes on the lawn outside the Capitol in D.C. to represent

www.politifact.com

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Fun fact: 130M innocent men, women and children were disarmed and then slaughtered by their own governments in the 20th century alone.

Q: Are 19 dead children worth it?

A: Yes. It’s has to be. Because the alternative of another 130M dead at the hands of their own governments must NEVER happen again.

 

[TLB]

This group, Snopes, and the SPLC (there are others) are all lefty propaganda outlets. The SPLC relationship with the FBI is the most disturbing.

 

[sieveboy]

No civilian with a rifle was ever stuffed into a boxcar. Fact check that.

 

[Broc]

The argument is that Jews had already had their homes raided anyway and had been shipped off to gas chambers, so had gun confiscation not happened, they still would have stood no chance against the Nazis.

f*** these people.

This is how is “Never Again” gets forgotten.

PolitiFact | No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust

No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust

On March 13, 2018, gun control activists laid 7,000 pairs of shoes on the lawn outside the Capitol in D.C. to represent

www.politifact.com

This is very wrong and based on an opinion:

But the Nazis had already been raiding Jewish homes by then, and the Anti-Defamation League, an organization founded to fight anti-Semitism, explained in 2013 that "the small number of personal firearms in the hands of the small number of Germany’s Jews (about 214,000) remaining in Germany in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state."

I could make the argument that 214K guns make a difference. Lets say there is one dead German soldier for every 3 guns. That is 71,333 ... round to 71,000 dead German soldiers.

That would make people think twice, and it would have been 71K people that would not have been fighting on the front or sending Jews to camps...

Look at what a pain in the a** the resistance movements were. Did they have 214K guns?

 

[FiremanBob]

You have to hand it to the Left for propaganda skills. "Politifact" and Snopes are both organizations dedicated to spreading lies.

 

[SFC13557]

See the Ukraine for proof that an armed population can fight back against Foreign and Domestic assault.

 

[kalash]

See signature...

 

[sig shooter]

No civilian with a rifle was ever stuffed into a boxcar. Fact check that.

They may have been buried in the ground but never enslaved .

 

[whatluck]

Ironically, the writer of that article is clearly Jewish.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Did gun control prevent additional incidents like the Warsaw ghetto uprising?

 

[meh]

At least more of them could have died with their boots on. Whether or not any given thing would have materially affected a bad outcome in the past is less important than identifying disarming of the populace as a common element of the lead-up to atrocities, the inference being that the instinct to disarm the populace in the name of safety might be a very bad one because it functions as an enabler for bad men. A rational rebuttal is not to argue that the weapons would have made no difference, rather that it is correlation, not causation, because disarming the populace has been done here, here, and there without being followed by atrocities.

None of it rises to the level of proof. That rebuttal is a bit like arguing that smoking doesn't cause cancer because so many men have smoked and died as old men of something unrelated, or that so-and-so smokes but hasn't died from lung cancer or some other lung dysfunction yet. Logic will fail us here. We must rely on common sense. My common sense tells me that a disarmed populace is one that lives and dies at the whim of whoever controls the military and paramilitary forces that provide whatever security there is. Freedom is not endowed there, rather doled out, or not, by the government. That may describe the UK, Australia, etc., but it is as un-American as you can possibly get.

 

[Quantavious G]

Ironically, the writer of that article is clearly Jewish.

he is an "American Liberal Jew". As opposed to your average person who is of the Jewish faith. Jewish people who live in Israel probably favor the idea of a well armed, well trained civilian population. The handful of Russian Jewish immigrants I worked with were all on board with firearms ownership. I doubt you would find a real holocaust survivor who favored government confiscation of firearms.

A while back on one of the threads there was a pic of a Rabbi with a sidepiece doing something with some kids. Samantha should give him a call for an interview.

 

[Hailstorm]

Anything to support the antigun narrative.

 

[MaverickNH]

The argument is that Jews had already had their homes raided anyway and had been shipped off to gas chambers, so had gun confiscation not happened, they still would have stood no chance against the Nazis.

f*** these people.

This is how is “Never Again” gets forgotten.

PolitiFact | No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust

No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust

On March 13, 2018, gun control activists laid 7,000 pairs of shoes on the lawn outside the Capitol in D.C. to represent

www.politifact.com

The author seems to “fact-check” a lot of gun control topics Pardon Our Interruption

I find Stephen Halbrook’s work to be more reliable Gun Control in the Third Reich

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The author seems to “fact-check” a lot of gun control topics Pardon Our Interruption

I find Stephen Halbrook’s work to be more reliable Gun Control in the Third Reich

View attachment 628372

Both the article and the book were written to support a pre-determined agenda, and neither is considered credible by the side that disagrees with the conclusion. It's like asking the Brady group to take John Lott seriously.

 

[upcountry]

SPLC and the ACLU have nothing to do with what their names purport to stand for.
The former owner of a house we bought subscribed to the SPLC magazine, and it continued with us for a while.
It really opened my eyes.

 

[Dadstoys]

Revisionist history is the best history for liberals.

 

[Broc]

Ironically, the writer of that article is clearly Jewish.

Jewish people enslaved themselves under the excuse of protecting themselves.

Israel is a police State, and here most vote for gun control and confiscation.

I guess they don't teach them a lot of history.

 

[Broc]

The day I have an FFL it will be called GUN CONTROL.

So you can all say you love GUN CONTROL.

 

[NHKevin]

At least more of them could have died with their boots on. Whether or not any given thing would have materially affected a bad outcome in the past is less important than identifying disarming of the populace as a common element of the lead-up to atrocities, the inference being that the instinct to disarm the populace in the name of safety might be a very bad one because it functions as an enabler for bad men. A rational rebuttal is not to argue that the weapons would have made no difference, rather that it is correlation, not causation, because disarming the populace has been done here, here, and there without being followed by atrocities.

None of it rises to the level of proof. That rebuttal is a bit like arguing that smoking doesn't cause cancer because so many men have smoked and died as old men of something unrelated, or that so-and-so smokes but hasn't died from lung cancer or some other lung dysfunction yet. Logic will fail us here. We must rely on common sense. My common sense tells me that a disarmed populace is one that lives and dies at the whim of whoever controls the military and paramilitary forces that provide whatever security there is. Freedom is not endowed there, rather doled out, or not, by the government. That may describe the UK, Australia, etc., but it is as un-American as you can possibly get.

View: https://youtu.be/uRTR-k_8qtI

 

[MaverickNH]

Both the article and the book were written to support a pre-determined agenda, and neither is considered credible by the side that disagrees with the conclusion. It's like asking the Brady group to take John Lott seriously.

Indeed - whenever Lott is asked to debate gun control advocates, the gun control advocates decline and say they won’t debate an unqualified person in the NRA’s pocket.

I get your point about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. A different situation entirely, but we’re finding out how the will to fight back makes a marked difference with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Small arms may be a big part of enabling national willpower, even if they are a small part of necessary firepower to resist seemingly overwhelming odds.

 

[LakeTrout]

So the Nazi's would have been able to beat the Jews in a fight even if the Jews were armed and put up a resistance. I get that. But you can't logically conclude that therefore the Jews being armed would not have prevented the holocaust. Many battles have not been fought, not because they were unwinnable, but because at what cost were they winnable and what position would that leave yourself in if you did win it at great cost.

Lots of animals could could beat a porcupine in a fight. They're slow, kind of dumb, and don't really have much of an offensive capability. But the kind of shape and long term effects of the fight that it would leave most predators in to go after a porcupine and win, makes it a moot point and undesirable for almost all predators to attack a porcupine. Whether or not the outcome would be in their favor.

I suspect that tens of millions of people murdered by their governments last century would have kept their lives if they were armed with similar rifles and facing death by democide.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Indeed - whenever Lott is asked to debate gun control advocates, the gun control advocates decline and say they won’t debate an unqualified person in the NRA’s pocket.

I get your point about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. A different situation entirely, but we’re finding out how the will to fight back makes a marked difference with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Small arms may be a big part of enabling national willpower, even if they are a small part of necessary firepower to resist seemingly overwhelming odds.

So does this mean the gun control advocates are offering a qualified person who is not in the pocket of the gun control lobby?

As to the Warsaw thing - it would make a bigger difference today because it's harder to keep a lid on information and round up huge groups of people with many of them not knowing what was happening until it was too late. If more people knew they were facing certain death from the WWII roundups, there would have been much more resistance.

 

[Pistolay]

These are the same people who say that armed Americans could never stand up against the U.S. government. Someone needs to tell that to those goatherders in Afghanistan.

 

[Fixxah]

No civilian with a rifle was ever stuffed into a boxcar. Fact check that.

Not without lots of ventilation and low temperature anyway.

 

[MaverickNH]

So does this mean the gun control advocates are offering a qualified person who is not in the pocket of the gun control lobby?

As to the Warsaw thing - it would make a bigger difference today because it's harder to keep a lid on information and round up huge groups of people with many of them not knowing what was happening until it was too late. If more people knew they were facing certain death from the WWII roundups, there would have been much more resistance.

Gun control advocacy groups think themselves pure and righteous, morally and ethically superior, with facts and logic on their side. Their Bloomberg/Soros, funding is laundered by Leftist philanthropic organization (Joyce, MacArthur, etc.), while they claim gun right advocates are funded by gun manufacturers. The few times they have debated Lott, Kopel, Lund, etc., on the airwaves, they’ve done poorly, at best. Theirs is a propaganda campaign, so a fair debate is not to their advantage..

When law schools stage firearms-related workshops, they rarely invite any participants without gun control agendas. Rand did a V2 of their Experts Survey recently, again with more experts that favored stricter gun policies than more relaxed gun policies. They noted "the researchers found one policy that members of both camps thought would be a win. It would commit resources to prosecute anyone who cannot legally own a gun but falsifies paperwork or otherwise tries to acquire one anyway. The experts largely agreed that would reduce firearm homicides, mass shootings, and property crime, with no significant effect on hunting, defensive gun use, or the right to bear arms." The same public surveys that find 80%+ support for UBCs, 18Yr+, etc., also finds 80%+ support for enforcing existing laws - but politicians and prosecutors refuse to do so … because social Justice and racial equity.

The genre of fiction where the US is invaded by Russia or Chinas includes control of telecommunications (TV, radio, cell service and internet) for a good reason. i’m reading a novel now that factionalizes a instruction manual on partisan-resistance comms.

Amazon product ASIN B09X49ZRMGView: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09X49ZRMG/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_image?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

[Dadstoys]

I'm not getting on the f*cking train.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

View attachment 628551
I'm not getting on the f*cking train.

Me either