Oleg's MMM poster caused a firestorm! Need help with replies to this acqaintance

F

Futo Inu

New member
I merely forwarded the poster of the Nazis leading the Jewish women to slaughter, along with the subject caption "Found on the web. Hmmmm...." to about everyone on my email list. Here is the reply I received from an acquaintance after a brief exchange:


****************

Do you know what the laws for private gun ownership were in Germany in the
1930's? Do you believe the right gun laws could have prevented the
holocaust? Many of the millions who were marched to their death by the
Nazis came from other countries such as Poland which were invaded by the
Nazis. If the actual military forces of those countries were no match for
the German army, do you really think private armed citizens could have done
anything other than get themselves killed more quickly?

Using analogies to Nazi Germany makes for great rhetoric and inflammatory
propaganda, but it contributes very little to an intelligent debate. I bet
you are smarter than the people who made that web page, and if you want to
share your personal views re the second amendment with me, I would be enjoy
discussion and debate on the topic.

p.s. Just how "active" are you in your ongoing civil rights struggle? Do
you mean card-carrying-member-of-the-NRA-type-active, or
I-was-on-my-way-to-meet-Timothy-McVeigh-when-he-got-stopped-by-the-highway-p
atrol-type-active?

************************

What's the best way to reply to his points? Does anyone have that link to the essay on the reality of the use of simple civilian weapons against an army?

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited June 12, 2000).]
 
There are two parts to that argument.

1. internal - To preserve liberty, the militia does not have to defeat the army of its country. It only has to defeat the police and to raise the stakes enough and fight hard enough to cause the army to collapse, which most armies will if turned against their own civilians. The mere presence of armed civilians also tends to reduce the desire of tyrants to use force.

2. external - If an external enemy defeats the army, it is true that the militia is not likely to do much better against it. But again the presence of armed civilians will change the dynamic of occupation. The occupiers will be more fearful, less likely to go everywhere, less able to control the country. There were areas of occupied Poland and the Ukraine which the SS and SD could not control due to armed resistance groups, and there were Jews in these armed groups.

In short, there's more to this analysis than just "who will win." No victory or defeat is permanent. An armed citizenry will always make it harder to occupy and to continue to occupy a country.

The Nazi analogy may be too inflammatory.

Try

1. Vietnam (especially good since many anti-gun people were also opposed to our effort in Vietnam and thought we couldn't win. Ask why they think we couldn't win!)

2. The American revolution. The English were well aware that they faced "a people numerous and armed" and made no real effort to control anything away from the sea.
 
You might be referring to the following excerpt from the Texas Law Review that is quoted on Guncite.com :

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndobs.html

There is a link there to the actual law review article if you want the full text.

I'm not surprised that poster has ignited some flames.
 
Unfortunately, no websites, but off the top of my head, the following come to mind:

Warsaw Ghetto
Afghanistan
Somalia
Anywhere the UN has sent in "peace keepers",
currently Sierra Leone.

In any event, I don't think you're going to get too far with this one. Look at the p.s.

You might steer him/her to the JFPO site. Maybe info coming from a landsmann might carry a little more weight.

I find it interesting that the photos evoke such evisceral responses -- it really touches something deep in all of us, and I suspect, deeper in the antis, for the boogeyman their minds have tried to suppress comes out of the closet -- hence the heated reaction.

The New World Order has a Third Reich Odor.

[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited June 09, 2000).]
 
Tell him to read books about Jewish guerillas (I will post the titles tonight)...their experience was that armed Jews required much more effort by the Germans and generally survived...as opposed to their brethen who were not fighting back and were handled efficiently by a small number of Germans and collaborators.

BTW, I did not make that poster, someone from guntruths.com did.

[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited June 09, 2000).]
 
That was only one reason the Germans didn't invade Switzerland. Another was that Switzerland just wasn't of that much value strategically (land-locked). Another was that the mountainous terrain presented problems for attack, but also acted as a shield from possible attack. The Swiss also went to great lengths to cooperate (maybe too strong of a word) with the Nazis. Also, the Germans didn't want their stolen loot plundered out of the Swiss banks by their own army.

The handfull of armed civilians holding out in the Warsaw Ghetto outlasted both the Polish and the French armies - the resistance they offered also caused the Germans to re-route reinforcements headed for the Soviet front. Germany's defeat in the Soviet Union was also possible because of civilian partisan activity disrupting their supply lines. The French Resistance did much to disrupt German communications and slow the deployment of German reinforcements around a little town called Normandie. Without partisan support, WWII might have turned out very differently.

Back to the original question...
The US has never faced an army 1/10 the size of it's armed citizenry (if such an army has ever existed). I would also point out that the armed services and the police consist of the citizenry - how many would be willing to follow those orders? I think there would be mutiny and desertion on a scale undreamed of.
And remember, all that fancy, high-tech modern warfare appartus needs operators to function.
Besides, what do you think will happen to your rights if the gov't has turned the army on it's civilian population? Do you think you'll still have the right to free speech, right to a fair trial, right to vote, etc.??? I've said it before & I'll say it again, if the military is used against the civilian population en masse, we've all lost.



[This message has been edited by Danger Dave (edited June 09, 2000).]
 
I still believe the poster was a valid expression of the danger which governments frequently present. My understanding is that governments have killed more of their own people than have been killed in all wars. If so, then governments bear considerable watching.

Oh, and even in the U.S., army troops have been used against civilians. One example would be the us of U.S. Army Cavalry against the Bonus Marchers in Washington, DC.

We must hang together, people, or ...
 
tell your acquaintance to look up the history of the up rising of the Warsaw getto and answer these questions
1. How many German troops did it take to put down the uprising.

2. How long did it take.

3. How many guns did they start with.

If they are honest they will find that the Jews in the Warsaw getto started with a few guns and held out for quite a while against over whelming odds (if memory serves they had a few hand guns and rifles and maybe a machine gun or two to start)

You should also point them to the JPFO as they don't share the same opinion and spend a lot of time supporting the pic you e-mailed out.
 
Pabianice, Poland.

In 1938, 8,500 Jews lived there.

In 1939, after the invasion, all private firearms were confiscated.

In 1941, all Jews in Pabianice were put in cattle cars and shipped to the ghetto in Lodz.

In 1942, the last Jews in Lodz was shipped to the death camps.

By 1945, all 8,500 Jews from Pabianice were dead.

My grandfather emmigrated from Pabianice in 1913. Not one of my relatives who remained survived gun confiscation.

Woodit
 
"If the actual military forces of those countries were no match for the German army, do you really think private armed citizens could have done anything other than get themselves killed more quickly"?

The problem in countries where the civilian population has been disarmed is that once its military has been defeated, they're out of options. They are at the mercy of the invader.
Immediate survival might seem, in the short term, to be more desirable. One can only wonder how many of those later loaded into cattle cars and shipped off to death camps didn't have some regret at their lack of choices. How many would have preferred dying in battle to their eventual fate?
One also has to wonder what the course of WWII would have been like if the Nazi war machine had to clear out every city, town and village in house-to-house fighting.
Over 35 million people died during WWII.
How many were helpless, disarmed civilians?
 
The French and Dutch resistances were pretty effective against the Germans, with few weapons, as i recall. The Jews marched onto trains were pretty helpless with no weapons, as I recall.

Do you choose to fight and then die, or just die? I know my answer. It's astonishing to me that anyone of Jewish descent is in favor of disarming the populace, no matter how "friendly" the current regime. Human nature hasn't changed, and the 50+ million murdered in the 20th century are mute testimony to that.
 
I've posted this pic several times on TFL.

picoweek6.jpg



I'd seen this pic some years ago, or one very similar to it. It has a specific message, much as Oleg's pic of the woman.
There are a multitude of questions that arise from the photos, and they're meant to.

The old adage, "a picture says a thousand words".
Perhaps it would be equally fitting to state that, "a picture asks a thousand questions".

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms;
History shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
-----------------
"Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, and destroy their rugged- ness.
Get control of all means of publicity, and thereby get the peoples' mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities.
Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance."

Vladimir Ilich Lenin, former leader of USSR
 
Some perspective about the pictures themselves, separate from "Nazis & Guns": There was a time before TV. Really there was!

During the 1940s--WW II and all that--the only news pictures we had were either wire-photo and newsreels.

When you went to the movies, aside from the feature, the pre-views and a cartoon, there was a newsreel with camera footage from the various war zones.

The first acquaintance I had with the Holocaust, then, was in 1945-1946. Age 11 and 12. GIs opening the Nazi death camps, feeding the survivors...With interviews of those survivors. "Life" magazine also had pictures...

Maybe we were more in tune with "the real world", then. Certainly we were less squeamish. That is, at age 11 I thought the mistreatment of those folks was absolute evil--but I didn't turn away and make Katie Couric-style noises. Nor did my contemporaries.

I think too many people in today's world just don't want to face the fact that there are evil people, and sometimes you've gotta be willing to die in stopping them. Folks just don't want to believe it could happen here.

FWIW, Art
 
Art Eatman - "I think too many people in today's world just don't want to face the fact that there are evil people, and sometimes you've gotta be willing to die in stopping them. Folks just don't want to believe it could happen here."

Bullseye!
 
Eastman and Oatka are right. No one wants to think about the fact that evil exists. Anyone who does something bad is called "sick", which is a lazy way of avoiding trying to explain their actions.
 
One country... one word: Vietnam. Can a few people, with the will to fight, force a great nation to pull out it's troops? Yes. In vietnam, the people there were not fighting peoples with great military power. They were not fighting with Hi-Tech weapons. The made most of what they had in huts.. they fought with more "home made weapons" then AK-47's as portrayed by the movies. Could us "pee-ons" every have a chance against jets and tanks... I would say yes. Why.. because it's the brains and will power that win a war, not the armaments. An old saying comes to mind, "where there is a will, there is a way". You live or die as you are.. Sure, you may die, as many have, during the first part of any war (or police action, depending on your era), but this "war" could last more then expected.. which does not guarentee the "sure" winner as the winner. Vietnam lasted more years then expected.. and are they "free"? Think about it. We lost.. because the power of the people was greater then the power of our weapons. USP45usp
 
Futo--in reference to your Jewish friend's "debating" you, metion this:

"Free men bear weapons;
Slaves do not..."

Oleg's poster *ought* to remind us that those helpless & naked women were somebody's daughter, mother, wife, or sister--and we all should swear on the Altar of the Eternal God:

NEVER AGAIN!
 
I posted the following, on 3 June, in response to another thread. It also seems to apply here:


The topic of "Racism and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" provides a truly splendid example of how ignorant the
"antis" are. Please consider the following rationale (all estimates and calculations are conservative):

Q1: What is the worst example of racism in history?
A1: Without doubt, the Nazi's genocide of European Jews.

Q2: Would widely held arms have precluded the holocaust?
A2: Probably. Let us premise six million victims, with only one-sixth of Europe's Jewish citizens armed. Let us
further presume that each of the million-armed Jews is able to wound only one German soldier, with a 33 percent
death rate. That is an additional million casualties and 333,333 more dead German soldiers. It is unlikely that any
state engaged in a "to the death" world war would -- or could -- sustain a million extra casualties, due to
exceptionally adverse ramifications to their war fighting capabilities.

Therefore, I believe Hitler -- if confronted with brave, well-armed, well-trained, and strongly defensive European
Jews -- would have had to alter his genocidal policies. Perhaps the Nazis would have developed some equally
horrific approach. However, it is also possible that they would have simply forced Europe's Jewish citizens to
emigrate, rather than sustain an additional million casualties to their prime fighting-force (clearly over-taxing their
medical facilities, further depleting their economy, and decimating their military force structure).

In essence, highly motivated/courageous, trained, and armed individuals sustain freedom and emasculate tyranny.
 
Don't have the URL on hand, but there is a paper posted on the net, told by one of the survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. I know the URL was posted here on TFL several months ago. Have them read this. It tells the whole story.

One of the very interesting things I got out of it was how the jews were afraid of using guns, because no one knew how to use them. The way the story unfolds is it takes several of them, teachers, engineers etc. who sat down and figured out how the darn things worked. They then taught each other how to use them. At first, because no one knew how to aim the gun, they would walk up to a german, put the gun in their back and pull the trigger. No aiming required.

This story, if nothing else drives home the point that everyone.... I mean everyone should have the basics of how to shoot a firearm. Actually the germans were more afraid of those who knew how to shoot a gun than the guns themselves. As a result the gun owners were the first to be rounded up and done away with. As a gun owner, that is one of the reasons I fear registration. Because I know how to use guns, I will be the first targeted.




------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top