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

[Anonymous]

Originalism: Interpreting the intent of the Founding Fathers to coincide with the conclusion you originally wanted to come to.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote: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

You are welcome to disagree. But you are not supporting your disagreement with a realistic argument. Germany's Jews were less than 1% of the population. Do you think that if they had arms -- the same arms that were available to the other 99% -- it would have made a difference? Several national armies were unable to defeat the Nazis and you think Jewish civilians would have been able to do it?

The government takes away liberties all the time in this country. Guns don't prevent that. Did all those AR-15s in private hands stop the government from engaging in warrantless wiretapping? Have guns prevented the due-process free arrest of American citizens or even the due-process free killing of American citizens? Hardly.

The Branch Davidians were armed to the teeth. How did that work out for them? Just as well as it would have worked for Germany's Jews.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

You're right. Hitler was not interested in disarming the people. Only a select few as you say, i.e. the Jews. And expanded gun rights for everyone who wasn't a Jew. But that made no difference in the Jews' fate.

And 6 million Jews is simply collateral damage to y'all. And if he got them all, then there would be no Israel to torture the Palestinians, creating terrorism I fully understand now.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

You are welcome to disagree. But you are not supporting your disagreement with a realistic argument. Germany's Jews were less than 1% of the population. Do you think that if they had arms -- the same arms that were available to the other 99% -- it would have made a difference? Several national armies were unable to defeat the Nazis and you think Jewish civilians would have been able to do it?

The government takes away liberties all the time in this country. Guns don't prevent that. Did all those AR-15s in private hands stop the government from engaging in warrantless wiretapping? Have guns prevented the due-process free arrest of American citizens or even the due-process free killing of American citizens? Hardly.

The Branch Davidians were armed to the teeth. How did that work out for them? Just as well as it would have worked for Germany's Jews.

You're right, the Branch Davidians were burned alive by the paranoid Clinton administration. Didn't work out that well for them

Did you ever consider that people would rather go down fighting than not? Let's make this personal. You are educating your child re: stranger/danger. Did you tell your kid to do anything he/sh can to fight back or did you tell him to simply accept his/her fate if he is grabbed by a predator?

[Anonymous]

So you Re saying the branch Davidians were not breaking the law, that they were not dangerous and that children werenot being abused?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
You're right, the Branch Davidians were burned alive by the paranoid Clinton administration. Didn't work out that well for them

Did you ever consider that people would rather go down fighting than not? Let's make this personal. You are educating your child re: stranger/danger. Did you tell your kid to do anything he/sh can to fight back or did you tell him to simply accept his/her fate if he is grabbed by a predator?

But the Branch Davidians didn't have to go down fighting. Had they surrendered, a lot of them (especially the children) wouldn't have even been arrested.

It's interesting that you bring up my kid (I actually have two). Those of you with fantasies of using your personally-owned arsenal to fight off the US Government as it comes to enslave you share a lot with my children. Both you and them have a hard time distinguishing reality from imagination. I recently had a talk about stranger danger with one of my sons. He was convinced that his knowledge of karate was sufficient that he would be able to beat up anyone that tried to abduct him. I told him that screaming and running away would be better tactics. I guess this means that I am instilling liberal values of defeat into him.

Standing and fighting when the worst that you will suffer is a butt-kicking is not a bad strategy to earn respect. Standing and fighting when you are assured of death just means you will die. In case in which fighting and dying with a gun is just as effective as fighting and dying with a stick, I'm not sure why having a gun is so important.

[Anonymous]

What were the Branch Davidians doing to justify the extreme action taken?

I don't have those fantasies. I don't have a home full of weapons and don't feel the government is coming to get me; I think that the bulk of the American people will start waking up when the progressive policies affect their lives and paychecks to such a degree, that they can't ignore it any more. Progressives live in bubbles in areas of the US. Not everyone who voted for Obama is a progressive. Some are simply democrats or independents that, when thoroughly f*cked over, will come to their senses.

In my opinion, you don't give up. You fight until the end. And BTW? Assuming anyone who doesn't think guns are evil must be harboring arsenals is ridiculous. Only a progressive would think that.

See, that's where libs go off the rails. They don't understand this concept of self-defense. Check the other threads - 12 year old boy saves his siblings from an armed intruder and HE'S the villain. Woman protects her self and her twins from an intruder and SHE'S the villain. Poor criminals - such a maligned group.

Screaming and running away IS doing something. Did your know your kid should run in the opposite direction? It take more time to turn around and increases the chances of getting away.

Let me give you some other tricks, given to me by law enforcement. Pass it on to your kids. They are to grab the wheel and crash the car of taken away in one - they are much more likely to survive the crash than the abduction. They can also take a button from their shirt, a small piece of folded up paper, and put it into the ignition so the kidnapper can't get a key in to prevent being driven away. Alternatively, if the car is moving, pulling the keys out, or jamming the car into another gear - anything to crash the car and/or get the attention of others around. Will it always work? Nope. But it's (listen closely here) something to do. Sitting around waiting to die is just stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you Re saying the branch Davidians were not breaking the law, that they were not dangerous and that children werenot being abused?

According to the Clinton administration yes. According to other reports, there were things that needed more investigation but to launch a military operation that resulted in the deaths of that many children was not justified.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:What were the Branch Davidians doing to justify the extreme action taken?

They used their arsenal of weapons to kill a number of law enforcement officers.

Anonymous wrote:I don't have those fantasies. I don't have a home full of weapons and don't feel the government is coming to get me; I think that the bulk of the American people will start waking up when the progressive policies affect their lives and paychecks to such a degree, that they can't ignore it any more. Progressives live in bubbles in areas of the US. Not everyone who voted for Obama is a progressive. Some are simply democrats or independents that, when thoroughly f*cked over, will come to their senses.

I suspect your political analysis skills are not quite as well-honed as you believe them to be.

Anonymous wrote:
In my opinion, you don't give up. You fight until the end. And BTW? Assuming anyone who doesn't think guns are evil must be harboring arsenals is ridiculous. Only a progressive would think that.

I've been responding to posters who believe that guns are needed so that citizens can protect themselves from the government. If you are not one of those posters, I apologize. If you don't have an arsenal of guns and don't think the government is coming to get you, then I suspect there is very little disagreement between us on the topic of guns.

Anonymous wrote:
See, that's where libs go off the rails. They don't understand this concept of self-defense. Check the other threads - 12 year old boy saves his siblings from an armed intruder and HE'S the villain. Woman protects her self and her twins from an intruder and SHE'S the villain. Poor criminals - such a maligned group.
Screaming and running away IS doing something. Did your know your kid should run in the opposite direction? It take more time to turn around and increases the chances of getting away.

Let me give you some other tricks, given to me by law enforcement. Pass it on to your kids. They are to grab the wheel and crash the car of taken away in one - they are much more likely to survive the crash than the abduction. They can also take a button from their shirt, a small piece of folded up paper, and put it into the ignition so the kidnapper can't get a key in to prevent being driven away. Alternatively, if the car is moving, pulling the keys out, or jamming the car into another gear - anything to crash the car and/or get the attention of others around. Will it always work? Nope. But it's (listen closely here) something to do. Sitting around waiting to die is just stupid.

I think you are a bit constrained in your definition of "something to do." There are many ways of "doing something". You will note that I didn't advise my son to sit and do nothing in the face of possible abduction. It is possible to protect your home without relying on a gun. Those that utilize such methods are not "sitting and doing nothing".

[Anonymous]

1) Really? The Branch Davidians arbitrarily killed police? Or was there an exchange of firefight? You make it sound as if they would just go out and kill police officers.

2) Insults, to me, mean that you don't have anything logical to say in return.

3) I am not one of those posters and it was very nice of you to offer apology. Sounds as if we have common ground here, as you say.

4) I'm glad that you have advised your son not to do anything - the last thing a kid needs is to feel hopeless. And as you said, kids feel they can be super heros in situations like that, which doesn't work either. I would say in protection of the home, a gun has its place, but, as you say, there's lots of other ways as well. Thieves, intruders, abductors, all want things to go easily and according to plan. The key is to set them off-balance.

I was followed once, in my car. The person definitely was being methodical. What saved me from harm was my attention to detail. I noticed the front plates were absent, which was against the law. I noticed that the same person had been behind me for a while, so I took a side road I knew would meet up again with the main road (in retrospect, I'm lucky the individual didn't try to overtake me on that road and would not advise this). When the person followed me on that side road, I knew it was for real. I did not lead that person home, even though home (and my parents) was around the corner. I kept driving until I came to a very busy7/11 style store and pulled into the parking lot. When I saw the person go next door into the gas station and hide his car behind some pumps, that's when I got pissed. I pulled out of the space and GUNNED it at him. He took off, ran two red lights and was gone. Then I went into the store and told them what happened. A few years later, I re-told the story to an officer, who told me the man was hoping I would lead him home and probably would have either abducted me in the driveway or noted where I lived, hoping to strike soon after.

Very scary, but staying calm due to having something to do, a way to outsmart/defeat the individual was key to my safety and subsequent survival.

[Anonymous]

Some comments on the question of the Jews of Germany: It was not publicized that they were being carted off for extermination. So if they had had guns, their choice would have been to be taken someplace unknown for purposes also unknown, or to fight a vastly stronger force leading to certain death.

Some may have fought, and in retrospect we may well think it would have been a better death than gas ovens. But on the other hand, even though we now know what the camps were for, we also know that there were survivors; more than would have survived fighting the SS.

Also, many used the Jeff Steele defense and ran away. Quite a few of them made it to Switzerland or other safe places. Thank you Jeff, for saving all those Jewish lives.

[Anonymous]

I had a professor in college who fought for the resistance, first the Germans and after that the Russians. He gave lectures on what it was like. The first thing he pointed out was, it was not like the movies. It was very hard to carry out operations and stay alive. You had to hide all the time, needed papers to go anywhere, move at night by foot and be back in your hiding spot by daylight, food was hard to find, there was a curfew, and people turned you in. If they caught you, they would use your family members as hostages and force you to work for them. Any resistance to these states was crushed. Having guns supplied to the Jews or the resistance made no difference in stopping the state.

[Anonymous]

So if guns made no difference, why did Hitler disarm them? After all, it would have made no difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) Really? The Branch Davidians arbitrarily killed police? Or was there an exchange of firefight? You make it sound as if they would just go out and kill police officers.

Really? Apparently you are not familiar with the purpose of the Branch Davidians. They believed their biblical role was to die in a confrontation with Babylon (the government) in order to bring about the end of the world. They planned for it, they armed for it.

In any other situation, someone who marries twelve and fourteen year old girls because he thinks he is Jesus Christ would have no defenders in this country. But hey, if he's part of an apocalyptic cult that believes they are to fight the government, suddenly all is forgiven.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:So if guns made no difference, why did Hitler disarm them? After all, it would have made no difference.

Jews faced any number of restrictions under the Nazi regime. For instance, Jews were not allowed to have driver's licenses or own an automobile. They faced restrictions on access to public transportation. They couldn't even attend "German" movie theaters. The gun law was just part of an overall effort to deprive Jews of the rights available to other citizens. In that way, the gun law was no different than a great many other laws of the time. It was not about preventing them from defending themselves, but part of an effort to marginalize their overall position in society.