Why don't we just say it plainly? (Armed people don't get massacred)

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

breakingcontact

Moderator
I've always been interested in WW2. The documentaries about the civilian massacres are just impossibly sad. I've watched a couple lately and had the thought...

"If every adult male Jew had a rifle, it wouldn't have happened."

I know there were centuries of conditioning and a gradual reduction in rights and nothing is simple but really our response to the gun grabbers needs to include the very accurate and honest observation that we need to have the means to defend ourselves from criminals but also from a hostile government.

I just can't fathom how anyone who knows even a minimal amount of history would willingly give up the right to arms or restrict others right to arms. The only reason I can understand and it is terrifying is that "they" view us as the "other" much as the NAZIs viewed the Jews.
 
Because that would be too easy. ;)

If and when America has another civil war, it's not going to be pretty. The odds are stacked against the citizens very much so this time. Before, the citizenry were on equal ground equipment-wise with government forces. With modern technology and tactics that are available to the military today...it'll be very rough and perhaps impossible to win against them.
 
Wrong!...

Your premise is wrong. Armed citizens & sworn LE officers get shot or killed all the time.
An armed off duty police officer(with over 20 years service) was killed in a ATM robbery.
No one, even a armed citizen has a absolute ability to survive a lethal force event.

Clyde
 
If every adult male Jew had a rifle, it wouldn't have happened."
Click to expand...

You think that the Germain army. The same army that overrun most of Europe and needed the combined forces of of America Russia and the UK to defeat. Would not of being able to carry out the extermination of the jewis if they were armed are delusional. It might of made it more difficult but it wont of stopped it. PS If people are reading this that haven't a view one way or the other on gun control. They will be thinking if this is the views of the pro gun lobby then then they maybe gun control is not a bad idea. Like the one bellow for example.

If and when America has another civil war, it's not going to be pretty. The odds are stacked against the citizens very much so this time.
Click to expand...

There havant and might not be any further gun controls. I am reading on forums about extermination-civil wars-conspiracies. I think some are getting a bit carried away.
 
Last edited:
Gee Clyde, ya think ya totally missed the point on that one amigo?

Armed people have a better chance of survival.
 
Don't appreciate being called delusional.

The German regular army didn't handle the systematic killing of the Jews. (They of course played their part and did kill many Jews and members of other groups.)

If the oppressed peoples of Europe had even the most basic of arms, yes they would have been able to defend themselves and inflict serious damage to the various NAZI and local elements that persecuted and massacred them. If they were able to put up a fight that would have essentially been another front for the regular army to fight on and they would have had smaller forces with which to combat the Allied power.
 
Uncounted generations of serfdom in Europe has formed a mindset that a mere century or two of freedom has yet to overcome.

The founding of America was an entirely unique event in the annuals of history.

It is not only unfair to compare the two cultures, it is a comparison of apples and oranges.

ETA: so it is delusional to think that had the people of Europe been armed (as are many Americans), that the result would have been different. The two mindsets are too far apart.
 
Uncounted generations of serfdom in Europe has formed a mindset that a mere century or two of freedom has yet to overcome.

The founding of America was an entirely unique event in the annuals of history.

It is not only unfair to compare the two cultures, it is a comparison of apples and oranges.

ETA: so it is delusional to think that had the people of Europe been armed (as are many Americans), that the result would have been different. The two
mindsets are too far apart.
Click to expand...


I acknowledged the above with

"I know there were centuries of conditioning..."

minus the second class citizen conditioning + arms = a different outcome
 
If the oppressed peoples of Europe had even the most basic of arms, yes they would have been able to defend themselves and inflict serious damage to the various NAZI and local elements that persecuted and massacred them. If they were able to put up a fight that would have essentially been another front for the regular army to fight on and they would have had smaller forces with which to combat the Allied power.
Click to expand...

You have to remember that armies some numbered in the millions couldn't stop the Germain army. So how some armed civilians would have stoped them doesn't make sense.
 
And yet somehow, comparatively small numbers of enemy combatants have given the Us military no end of trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq. Don't underestimate the capabilities of a dedicated insurgency. The Greek resistance turns out to have had a rather major effect on Nazi operations in WW2.
Not that I think such a thing is likely to occur anytime in the foreseeable future in the US, but it pays to look to the future.
It is important to remember civil wars and insurgencies tend to be hell of allot less lethal than genocides. And genocides tend not to occur when a significant percentage of the population is armed. Again, I seriously disagree with the conspiracy types who think that is eminent, but the last couple centuries saw a ton of death by overly controlling governments. It's not crazy to expect that it could possibly happen again sometime in the next couple centuries. Obviously, it is better to avoid such things by participating in discourse and paying attention to politics, but that doesn't always work. I'm thinking that most of the people who were murdered in Germany, Cambodia, Rwanda, the Soviet union, and many more besides, would have preferred, in retrospect, to have had even the slightest chance to avoid their fate.
 
Last edited:
And yet somehow, comparatively small numbers of enemy combatants have given the Us military no end of trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq. Don't underestimate the capabilities of a dedicated insurgency. The Greek resistance turns out to have had a rather major effect on Nazi operations in WW2
Click to expand...

The resistance fighters were a inconvenience to the Germain's during ww2. They did not effect the finial outcome of the war one way or the other.

As for the extermination of the Jews the germans were not stupid they didn't say to the people get on that train we are taking you to be killed. They were told they were being relocated or going to work etc to stop resistance. Later in the war when people new what was happening they did resist. The Warsaw uprising for example. But even that was just a minor inconvenience for the Germain's. Yes people being armed would have given them a chance to resist and allowed some to escape. But it woldent of stoped the extermination of the european Jews.
 
Of course there was resistance. Of course the Warsaw uprising is told about in basic histories.

I addressed that I know they incrementally had their rights reduced. I'm not saying no massacres or atrocities wouldn't have occurred but it wouldn't have been on the levels that we know today and if the Germans pulled huge quantities of their front line troops to do battle with the armed Jews the war would have ended sooner and would again result in far less deaths.
 
And as it turns out, the Greek resistance did have the effect of delaying resources otherwise meant for the front, which delayed the german attack until winter, which allowed Russia more time to prepare... Also it was winter...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top