Obama like Adolf Hitler? Disarming the people while increasing the government power and reach

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone I know posted a poster on FB comparing Obama to Hitler. I was absolutely appalled. What the hell is wrong with people? I am disgusted days later.

Equally appalled when same was done against Bush?

I have said this 100 times, but I'll say it again. When MoveOn.org held a video contest and some unknown individual submitted an entry comparing Bush to Hitler, both Chambers of the US Congress voted to condemn MoveOn. Hillary Clinton even voted to condemn. Recently Drudge's home page compared Obama to Hitler and Stalin and Congress hasn't made a peep. What used to generate outrage is now just business as usual.

Clearly Bush and Obama are not receiving equal treatment in this regard.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone I know posted a poster on FB comparing Obama to Hitler. I was absolutely appalled. What the hell is wrong with people? I am disgusted days later.

Equally appalled when same was done against Bush?

I have said this 100 times, but I'll say it again. When MoveOn.org held a video contest and some unknown individual submitted an entry comparing Bush to Hitler, both Chambers of the US Congress voted to condemn MoveOn. Hillary Clinton even voted to condemn. Recently Drudge's home page compared Obama to Hitler and Stalin and Congress hasn't made a peep. What used to generate outrage is now just business as usual.

Clearly Bush and Obama are not receiving equal treatment in this regard.

Yeah, I remember all the condemnation well. LOL.

[Anonymous]

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/17/cbs-defeating-nra-like-defeating-the-nazis/?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2013-01-17_193079&utm_content=5790952&utm_term=_193079_193087

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PAGING GODWIN, PAGING GODWIN.

This! Even Mackey was a few degrees away from Godwin when he compared Obamacare to fascism. He walked that back fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PAGING GODWIN, PAGING GODWIN.

This! Even Mackey was a few degrees away from Godwin when he compared Obamacare to fascism. He walked that back fast.

The Original Post is worse than Godwin's law. Godwin's law merely states that as an Internet thread continues, the more likely someone is to invoke the name of Hitler. Yes, the Original Post was predicted by that law.

But it's worse. Here, the OP commits the logical fallacy of Reductio Ad Hitler, which is a sub-species of the Ignitio Elenchi fallacy, which basically means invoking an argument that is irrelevant. No argument is refuted simply because Hitler shared the same view. But the Reductio ad Hitler fallacy carries with it all the additional opprobrium of the Holocaust which makes it even more repugnant. Fallacious reasoning does not advance any debate yet those opposed to further restrictions on guns seem to tap into a never-ending spring of novel, but fallacious arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone I know posted a poster on FB comparing Obama to Hitler. I was absolutely appalled. What the hell is wrong with people? I am disgusted days later.

Equally appalled when same was done against Bush?

You were asking the question of me. Yes, I would have been equally appalled. I personally thought George Bush was not the greatest of presidents but he (like President Obama) did not purposely set out to kill millions of people as far as I know. Look for a fight elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

I'm going to sit back and watch this conversation develops. So far we have kids home alone, an armed intruder break in - with a partner - and the boy is the one who is in the wrong.

BWAHAHHHAAAAA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone I know posted a poster on FB comparing Obama to Hitler. I was absolutely appalled. What the hell is wrong with people? I am disgusted days later.

Equally appalled when same was done against Bush?

You were asking the question of me. Yes, I would have been equally appalled. I personally thought George Bush was not the greatest of presidents but he (like President Obama) did not purposely set out to kill millions of people as far as I know. Look for a fight elsewhere.

Actually we are in agreement. Wasn't looking for a fight, so much as I was looking to see if there was balance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.
The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

Or, as Jon Stewart put it much more succinctly, "France couldn't stop Hitler, and I'm pretty sure they had guns." (paraphrased)

Also, "A tyrant doesn't have to work so fuckin' hard to carry Ohio." [paraphrased]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone I know posted a poster on FB comparing Obama to Hitler. I was absolutely appalled. What the hell is wrong with people? I am disgusted days later.

Equally appalled when same was done against Bush?

You were asking the question of me. Yes, I would have been equally appalled. I personally thought George Bush was not the greatest of presidents but he (like President Obama) did not purposely set out to kill millions of people as far as I know. Look for a fight elsewhere.

Actually we are in agreement. Wasn't looking for a fight, so much as I was looking to see if there was balance.

Okay, sorry. For whatever reason, this particular thing on FB has me really pissed off. Need to let it go now. :o)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone I know posted a poster on FB comparing Obama to Hitler. I was absolutely appalled. What the hell is wrong with people? I am disgusted days later.

Equally appalled when same was done against Bush?

You were asking the question of me. Yes, I would have been equally appalled. I personally thought George Bush was not the greatest of presidents but he (like President Obama) did not purposely set out to kill millions of people as far as I know. Look for a fight elsewhere.

Actually we are in agreement. Wasn't looking for a fight, so much as I was looking to see if there was balance.

Okay, sorry. For whatever reason, this particular thing on FB has me really pissed off. Need to let it go now. :o)

No worries - can see where you drew conclusions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.
The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

Or, as Jon Stewart put it much more succinctly, "France couldn't stop Hitler, and I'm pretty sure they had guns." (paraphrased)

Also, "A tyrant doesn't have to work so fuckin' hard to carry Ohio." [paraphrased]

So what we have here is the notion that (a) since Hitler didn't confiscate everyone's guns, it doesn't matter that he took away the Jews' guns, because they could not have won anyway. And that mentality is just fine with y'all. No wonder libs just want to turn over their lives to the government - it's all hopeless anyway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So what we have here is the notion that (a) since Hitler didn't confiscate everyone's guns, it doesn't matter that he took away the Jews' guns, because they could not have won anyway. And that mentality is just fine with y'all. No wonder libs just want to turn over their lives to the government - it's all hopeless anyway

No what we have here is a wingnut who heard that assault weapons are going to be banned, and is trying to convince us that Obama is disarming the country.

There are 300 million guns in America. If assault weapons are banned, that will make what, 298 million left???

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
So what we have here is the notion that (a) since Hitler didn't confiscate everyone's guns, it doesn't matter that he took away the Jews' guns, because they could not have won anyway. And that mentality is just fine with y'all. No wonder libs just want to turn over their lives to the government - it's all hopeless anyway

No, what we have here is a red herring. For 99% of the German population, Hitler expanded gun rights. For 1%, he took away gun rights. In terms of what happened to that 1%, the gun law was immaterial. It didn't make a difference to the Jews' fate. The suggestion that a leader who wants to take away guns is like Hitler is senseless because Hitler didn't take away guns except in a very limited sense. The suggestion that Obama wants to take away guns is wrong because he doesn't want to take away guns. It actually would be correct to compare Obama to Hitler in the sense that neither was interested in disarming their people. Of course, that is the opposite of the OP of this thread's contention. Also, the same comparison would exist for every other American president.

[Anonymous]

I disagree that it wouldnt have changed the jews fate. The 2nd amendment is about hunting or burglers etc.. It is to protect against tyranny of the govt. now could we as citizens armed with guns or even high powered firearms stand a chance aginst the us govt or military.. No. But it keeps it all in balance .. Certain other freedoms cant be taken away bc the threat of revolt and no politician wants that. We basicslly are completely vulnerable without the right to own a gun. Iam not a gun owner and most likely never will be but i completely respect others choices to own one and will fight for that right