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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Playing with words about the Warsaw ghetto is irrelevant to the core issue. The Jews weren't ready to defend themselves.

And if we allow ourselves to be disarmed, then we could end up like them. If we were disarmed we would have more people that believe we have no hope of resisting ..... certainly more than now .... another poster in another thread seems to think he can't win if semi-autos are banned:

The more heavily armed The People are, the less likely the elites at the top will try to massacre them, and the less likely The People are to meekly submit to same.

Do you think the Serbs would have attempted their butchery without nearly completely dominating the Yugoslavian military?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a good conversation.

If national pro-2A leaders said these things, they would be ridiculed and marginalized? Is that why the real roots of the 2nd amendment are mostly discussed in circles such as TFL?
 
The claim that if a large percent of the 3.5 million Jews in Poland could reasonably defend themselves if they were prepared would not have impacted the Wehrmacht is stupid.

I don't think anyone didn't say they would have a impact. But the polish army didn't have much impact. So why some think armed civilians would have had much impact i don't know.

I find this line of reasoning even more interesting given your locale.

Do you really want me to go down that road. We would definitely be going of topic.

The Jews later did defend the state of Israel without the best of weapons at its founding.

That's not comparing like with like. We were talking about the German army during ww2. Not some Arab armies. The German army would have went trough the state of Israel if it was in existence at the time for a shortcut.
 
Last edited:
That, sir, is QOTD material.

Thank You. I'm glad someone thinks so. There is so much "Kool-Aid level blind faith" in government these days ...... Government is made of men, and men are inherrently flawed ..... so many people seem to think it's OK for government to do things that People should do for themselves.... it's a short step from should to can't.

Maybe Tam will award me teh Internetz..... she has so many laying around!
 
I find it very odd for people to think that an reasonably armed and peaceful populace would just bend over and die at the hands of the Germans in WWII. Their generals were great tacticians, but they cannot defy pure numbers.
 
I find it very odd for people to think that an reasonably armed and peaceful populace would just bend over and die at the hands of the Germans in WWII. Their generals were great tacticians, but they cannot defy pure numbers

Unfortunately history tells us that's exactly what they did do. Some didn't some fought but it did not change the outcome.
 
manta49, it was done gradually; psychological conditioning against resisting the established order has been going on for centuries in your parts.

Of course, in your parts, the IRA only defied the British for a measly, what, 80 or more years?

So some are not quite as easily conditioned, one supposes.

Still, I find it odd that a person who hails from just across the water from an island that established the concept of an armed free yeomanry (don't want to be a serf? maintain proficiency with the longbow and respond to the call if we ever need you!) has a hard time with the concept of an armed populace.
 
And didn't the IRA make do with an assortment of civilian weapons and captured military weapons, along with a hearty amount of what we would now call IEDs?
 
Still, I find it odd that a person who hails from just across the water from an island that established the concept of an armed free yeomanry (don't want to be a serf? maintain proficiency with the longbow and respond to the call if we ever need you!) has a hard time with the concept of an armed populace.

I have no problem with a armed population. I just don't think that if there is some gun control in America there is some master plan the disarm the public so they can be exterminated or something similar as some seem to think.

Having said that. Would more guns here have helped the situation over the last 30 years.
 
Manta, if the Government does not know where they are, they CAN NOT pick them up.

If they do, THEY CAN.

It may not even be the same Government- In Germany, the 1928 law requiring registration with local authorities was passed by the Weimar Government in an effort to disarm the Brownshirts (and the Reds, as well) to curb street fighting ....all in the name of "Public Safety" .... these same lists were used by the Nazi's 10 years later to enforce their new gun laws (Jews prohibited, "sporting purposes" requirements, etc.).
 
Extermination would be extreme, and unlikely.

Re-education? Somewhat more feasible.

It's only a difference in degrees of the tyrannical use of force, is it not?

....and if someone resists being re-educated, that gives a pretext for killing them, no?

It's a slippery slope, once begun .....

Once you are in the camps .....

It's about control, after all.
 
Here's another point to ponder. In politics we have the left and the right. I'm all alone in the middle. The far left and the far right are polar opposites, so to speak, just like a magnet. But imagine a horseshoe magnet. The opposite ends are close together. The point is, the far left and the far right will use exactly the same methods to achieve their aims, so, in a sense, there's little difference.
 
And didn't the IRA make do with an assortment of civilian weapons and captured military weapons, along with a hearty amount of what we would now call IEDs?

I think they had a bit more than that. From their friends in America and libya strange bedfellows.

To continue and escalate their armed campaign, the IRA needed to be better equipped, which meant securing modern small arms. In previous campaigns weapons had been secured before hostilities commenced via raids on British Army and even Irish Army weapons depots. In the 1969–1971 period this was no longer feasible. By 1972, the IRA had large quantities of modern small arms, particularly Armalite rifles, manufactured and purchased in the United States. The AR-18 rifle in particular was found to be very well suited to the Provisionals' purposes as its small size and folding stock meant that it was easy to conceal. Moreover, it was capable of rapid fire and fired a high velocity round which provided great "stopping power"
The IRA's main gun runner in the USA was George Harrison, an IRA veteran, resident in New York since 1938. Harrison bought guns for the IRA from a Corsican arms dealer named George de Meo, who had connections in organised crime. Joe Cahill acted as the contact between NORAID and Harrison. In 1971, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) had already seized 700 modern weapons from the IRA, including 2 tonnes of high explosive and 157,000 rounds of ammunition, most of which were US made.


Gaddafi later helped provide the IRA with the weaponry they needed to wage an armed campaign which lasted more than 30 years and claimed more than 1,000 lives.



The Eksund was carrying around 1,000 AK-47 machine guns, a million rounds of ammunition, more than 50 ground-to-air missiles and two tonnes of the powerful Czech-made explosive, Semtex.
 
Here's another point to ponder. In politics we have the left and the right. I'm all alone in the middle. The far left and the far right are polar opposites, so to speak, just like a magnet. But imagine a horseshoe magnet. The opposite ends are close together. The point is, the far left and the far right will use exactly the same methods to achieve their aims, so, in a sense, there's little difference.

My mother, American Government/World History/American history Teacher, drew it up as a circle, with the radical Left and the reactionary Right meeting at the bottom.

I think that Dire Straights had it right, in the lyrics of "Ride Across the River"-

Nothing gonna stop them as the day follows the night
Right becomes wrong, the left becomes the right

Your idea of "middle" is ...... perplexing to me, BT.

I don't really care for "Left" and "Right"- they can face whatever direction they want to, so long as they leave me and mine alone. Your love affair with Big Powerful Centralized Government scares the the Bejeezus out of me, BT.

I am still waiting, (incredulously) for your answer on what Federal power you do not like, BTW..... If you are the "middle" ....I'm just speechless ...
 
Last edited:
Odd, I just reminded BT of that in the 2nd Amendment thread...

I think he means he is in "the middle" in the sense that each of us perceives things as though from the center (middle) of our own personal universes.
 
Odd, I just reminded BT of that in the 2nd Amendment thread...

He has a knack for answering questions with further questions, and wandering off before ever answering .... must be/should have been a Politician.
 
Political_Diamond_Continuum_.png


Right or left can be rights grabbers. The "right" in this country has went from wanting to shrink the big government to trying to use the government to do what it wants done.

Hope they hammer the democrats on spending. I've already got my first smaller paycheck after the Rs and Ds claimed victory protecting me from my federal income taxes going up...while my payroll tax went up 2%!

I just cannot fathom how people don't properly view today's freedom restrictions with atrocities that happened around the world throughout history. A lot of it must come from a false belief in government that it is good...because people are good.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top