spook Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 A cliché I know but as has resulted time and time again when possession of firearms is made illegal with the exception of security services only crooks have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 It's hardly a cliché, and it's not "Godwin's law" (the invokation of which is a ridiculous counter-argument anyway as it's perfectly valid to bring up Hitler or the Nazis in such a discussion) - it's the truth. Dictators do not want ordinary people being armed. Dictators throughout history have disarmed the population. That is how they maintain their dictatorship. Hitler disarmed Jews and then murdered them. Now, that's not to say they were all armed, but the point is still valid - what if they had been armed? They could have defended themselves. Some people have mocked me for saying stuff like this, as if it's just crackpots in tinfoil hats who think the government is coming to get them, but some of us have better memories than that. The Holocaust was only decades ago and it wasn't even all that far away geographically. If it can happen in a cultured and advanced nation, as Germany was, it can happen anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Yes and obviously whilst it is many generations before my time No it wasn't. It was only two generations ago. It was practically last week. Why are you always so angry and aggressive in your responses? I simply stated my personal opinion and agreed with you on the US being able to do what they want with their own country. You seriously need to take some deep breaths and think before you post, it isn't even possible to agree with you without you going off on one. For your own blood pressure, calm down. Because you're a deliberate wind up merchant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 The whole advantage to governments is that they prevent violence. Before you say 'what about WW1 and 2', well even if you take into account civilian deaths during those conflicts the percentage of deaths per population of the countries involved was far lower than that from warfare in traditional societies. The larger the organisational group the lower the deaths from warfare, generally speaking. Large states with strong monopolies on violence have made the world much more peaceful and safe. Way to totally miss the point yet again. Forget WWI and WWI, as those were just wars. The Second Amendment is not just for foreign threats but to prevent domestic threats including their own government becoming despotic. Try the Holocaust or the Seven Year Plan as examples of government inflicting harm on ITS OWN POPULATION. Large states with strong monopolies like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and China are guilty of mass murder against their own populations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Are you saying that the jews could have defended themselves against the Third Reich? Ridiculous. This was a time when many people owned guns already. If the Nazis thought that private gun ownership was a threat they would have removed it lickety split, and the guns too. The fact is that the jews were vastly outnumbered and could have done little to fight anyway. Gun ownership is no protection against tyranny. Our experience seems to show us that that the opposite is true, that it promotes it, as anyone with a claim and enough armed men can cause havok against a government which has allowed such a situation to arise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Yes and obviously whilst it is many generations before my time No it wasn't. It was only two generations ago. It was practically last week. Semantics really but a generation is generally considered to be 20-25 years, so it was more than two generations ago from me. Of course that is no reason not to remember the horror of it all and to hopefully continue to learn from those errors. Why are you always so angry and aggressive in your responses? I simply stated my personal opinion and agreed with you on the US being able to do what they want with their own country. You seriously need to take some deep breaths and think before you post, it isn't even possible to agree with you without you going off on one. For your own blood pressure, calm down. Because you're a deliberate wind up merchant. Not sure what I've said or done to upset you, I don't even recall us being in that many direct discussions together. I most certainly don't aim to wind people up, apart from obvious silly posts that are attempts at humour from time to time I genuinely post what I believe and hope to aim to add to discussion. I struggle to see what was wrong with my post that elicited your response, I agreed with you about the US being left to decide their own things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Are you saying that the jews could have defended themselves against the Third Reich? Ridiculous. This was a time when many people owned guns already. If the Nazis thought that private gun ownership was a threat they would have removed it lickety split, and the guns too. The fact is that the jews were vastly outnumbered and could have done little to fight anyway. It isn't ridiculous. Jews could have defended themselves had they been armed. Just look at the example of the Warsaw Ghetto martyrs. They put up a good fight and died fighting, with honour and integrity, and FREE. They also helped the allied war effort by drawing in German troops to the fight there. That was just a small faction of Jews. If more Jews had been armed and had joined resistance groups, yes they still probably would have been butchered, but at least they'd have put up a fight. Some of them could have even fought their way out of occupied territories to freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Yes and obviously whilst it is many generations before my time No it wasn't. It was only two generations ago. It was practically last week. Semantics really but a generation is generally considered to be 20-25 years, so it was more than two generations ago from me. Of course that is no reason not to remember the horror of it all and to hopefully continue to learn from those errors. Yes, two generations ago. It's only three if you count yourself as a full generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.