Ben Carson and the Holocaust

[Anonymous]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/09/ben-carson-republican-presidential-candidate-holocaust-jews-armed_n_8268332.html?1444390035

Because...Hitler.

I swear this is not from The Onion!

Dr. heal thyself, please!

[Anonymous]

It's hard to believe this guy was a brain surgeon of all things! Someone must have done a lobotomy on him. He seems so stupid.

[Anonymous]

Of course it's not the only reason and Ben Carson wouldn't say it was. His point is people couldn't arm themselves and protect themselves because their rights were slowly taken away one by one. How is this controversial?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Of course it's not the only reason and Ben Carson wouldn't say it was. His point is people couldn't arm themselves and protect themselves because their rights were slowly taken away one by one. How is this controversial?

Carson does seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on gun control and not much on other "reasons":

The CNN presenter asked Carson: "If there had been no gun control laws in Europe at that time, would six million Jews have been slaughtered?"

He replied: "I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed… I'm telling you that there is a reason that these dictatorial people take the guns first."

Jewish groups generally don't agree with Carson about this and the ADL's reaction

Ben Carson has a right to his views on gun control, but the notion that Hitler’s gun-control policy contributed to the Holocaust is historically inaccurate. The small number of personal firearms available to Germany’s Jews in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state. When they had weapons, Jews could symbolically resist, as they did in the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and elsewhere, but they could not stop the Nazi genocide machine. In short, gun control did not cause the Holocaust; Nazism and anti-Semitism did.

[Anonymous]

Its controversial because it isn't true. Minority populations and one minority population in particular could not defend themselves against the Nazi's because of the fascist, nationalist, jingoist sentiment of the majority population in that time and place. Whole countries with whole armies couldn't defend themselves against it and were taken over. Armed Jews would not have solved the problem that was Nazism. A completely ridiculous thing to have said and an entirely warped way to try to oppose gun control.

[Anonymous]

What's worse is Hitler didn't take the guns away, the German people willingly voted to give their guns up after the Treaty of Versailles, but Hitler did prevent Jews from purchasing/owning guns after that. Owning guns would not have prevented the Holocaust per se, but maybe it would have saved one family's lives.

With this line of arguing, let's just have the police in Feeguson own guns, and make it illegal for any citizens there to have them. Is that right? Does it mean more police brutality? Probably. Does it mean someone can protect themselves from illegal search and seizure? Nope. It's a slippery slope.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Its controversial because it isn't true. Minority populations and one minority population in particular could not defend themselves against the Nazi's because of the fascist, nationalist, jingoist sentiment of the majority population in that time and place. Whole countries with whole armies couldn't defend themselves against it and were taken over. Armed Jews would not have solved the problem that was Nazism. A completely ridiculous thing to have said and an entirely warped way to try to oppose gun control.

If Ben Carson had been a Jew in NAZI Germany, he wouldn't have just stood there. He would have attacked them. Or, maybe he would have pointed to a Romani and said, ""I believe that you want that guy."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its controversial because it isn't true. Minority populations and one minority population in particular could not defend themselves against the Nazi's because of the fascist, nationalist, jingoist sentiment of the majority population in that time and place. Whole countries with whole armies couldn't defend themselves against it and were taken over. Armed Jews would not have solved the problem that was Nazism. A completely ridiculous thing to have said and an entirely warped way to try to oppose gun control.

Exactly. What gun rights people miss is that preserving freedom is not just about a bunch of random people owning guns. What's far more important is social organization and the mobilization of resources and control over institutions. Obviously firepower could play a role but what would be better? A couple of your neighbors running out into the street to shoot in whatever direction they thought best or a unit of trained, experienced, and equipped combatants who knew how to work together and follow orders?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its controversial because it isn't true. Minority populations and one minority population in particular could not defend themselves against the Nazi's because of the fascist, nationalist, jingoist sentiment of the majority population in that time and place. Whole countries with whole armies couldn't defend themselves against it and were taken over. Armed Jews would not have solved the problem that was Nazism. A completely ridiculous thing to have said and an entirely warped way to try to oppose gun control.

If Ben Carson had been a Jew in NAZI Germany, he wouldn't have just stood there. He would have attacked them. Or, maybe he would have pointed to a Romani and said, ""I believe that you want that guy."

So freaking funny!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its controversial because it isn't true. Minority populations and one minority population in particular could not defend themselves against the Nazi's because of the fascist, nationalist, jingoist sentiment of the majority population in that time and place. Whole countries with whole armies couldn't defend themselves against it and were taken over. Armed Jews would not have solved the problem that was Nazism. A completely ridiculous thing to have said and an entirely warped way to try to oppose gun control.

But one country did defend themselves, and the other countries as well, namely America. And they brought guns.

[Anonymous]

Why isn't anyone in the media talking about Ben Carson's mental illness? This guy is legit off-the-deep-end. It's pretty obvious he has high functioning Alzheimer's or something similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its controversial because it isn't true. Minority populations and one minority population in particular could not defend themselves against the Nazi's because of the fascist, nationalist, jingoist sentiment of the majority population in that time and place. Whole countries with whole armies couldn't defend themselves against it and were taken over. Armed Jews would not have solved the problem that was Nazism. A completely ridiculous thing to have said and an entirely warped way to try to oppose gun control.

But one country did defend themselves, and the other countries as well, namely America. And they brought guns.

What? The U.S. was dragged into WW2 kicking and screaming. It did not want to be involved until it was basically forced. Don't pretend like the 2nd Amendment had anything to do with U.S. victory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its controversial because it isn't true. Minority populations and one minority population in particular could not defend themselves against the Nazi's because of the fascist, nationalist, jingoist sentiment of the majority population in that time and place. Whole countries with whole armies couldn't defend themselves against it and were taken over. Armed Jews would not have solved the problem that was Nazism. A completely ridiculous thing to have said and an entirely warped way to try to oppose gun control.

But one country did defend themselves, and the other countries as well, namely America. And they brought guns.

By this logic, we obviously need to issue nuclear weapons to everyone. That's what it took to end WWII, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its controversial because it isn't true. Minority populations and one minority population in particular could not defend themselves against the Nazi's because of the fascist, nationalist, jingoist sentiment of the majority population in that time and place. Whole countries with whole armies couldn't defend themselves against it and were taken over. Armed Jews would not have solved the problem that was Nazism. A completely ridiculous thing to have said and an entirely warped way to try to oppose gun control.

Exactly. What gun rights people miss is that preserving freedom is not just about a bunch of random people owning guns. What's far more important is social organization and the mobilization of resources and control over institutions. Obviously firepower could play a role but what would be better? A couple of your neighbors running out into the street to shoot in whatever direction they thought best or a unit of trained, experienced, and equipped combatants who knew how to work together and follow orders?

Of course! "Guns rights" people know that "What's far more important is social organization and the mobilization of resources and control over institutions," (hence the NRA), The Revolutionary War made all that very clear and the Bill of Rights is supposed to ensure that the people can organize and mobilize themselves. Carson isn't an idiot just because he believes gun ownership is part of these freedoms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its controversial because it isn't true. Minority populations and one minority population in particular could not defend themselves against the Nazi's because of the fascist, nationalist, jingoist sentiment of the majority population in that time and place. Whole countries with whole armies couldn't defend themselves against it and were taken over. Armed Jews would not have solved the problem that was Nazism. A completely ridiculous thing to have said and an entirely warped way to try to oppose gun control.

But one country did defend themselves, and the other countries as well, namely America. And they brought guns.

America was/is geographically isolated from Europe. While our soldiers did eventually join the fight, they did it on foreign land. People back in the U.S. were impacted in some ways but there was no imminent threat to our land. Granted, Pearl Harbor was the exception, but we didn't exactly fight back that day because we were taken by surprise.