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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I always wonder how conservatives manage to simultaneously project feelings of rage, persecution, the absolute correctness and majority support of their stance, and upcoming victory. The above excerpt explains a lot.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

Oh, that makes it so much better

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Oh, that makes it so much better

But it does point out that it is a stretch to say the fate of the Jews rested on losing their gun rights. Millions of non-Jews were killed in the camps, and their gun rights did not save them.

[Anonymous]

I never did say that the FATE of the Jews rested on losing their gun rights. That's what libs here turned it into in order to defend their own jackwagon theories. What I SAID was that, when given a CHOICE, Jews demonstrated they preferred to go down fighting. By taking guns away, Hitler robbed them of that choice. That was by design.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Oh, that makes it so much better

I guess that is your opinion. It certainly is not mine.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I never did say that the FATE of the Jews rested on losing their gun rights. That's what libs here turned it into in order to defend their own jackwagon theories. What I SAID was that, when given a CHOICE, Jews demonstrated they preferred to go down fighting. By taking guns away, Hitler robbed them of that choice. That was by design.

You are really amazing. You just seem to be making this discussion up as you go along. So, let's get things back on track:

1) This topic was started by someone who thinks Obama is like Hitler because he wants to disarm the population.
a) Does Obama want to disarm Americans? Yes, or No? My position is "no". What is yours?
b) Did Hitler try to disarm Germans? My position is that he expanded gun rights except for Jews. What is yours?

2) A spin-off of the original topic is whether the restrictions regarding guns placed on Jews prevented them from defending themselves.
a) My position is that it made no difference. What is your position?
b) If I understand you correctly, you believe that outcome would not have been much different, but Jews would have preferred to go out fighting. Is that a correct summary of your position?

3) Is it your position that Americans should arm themselves simply so that they can "go down fighting" when the big, bad government comes to get them? If that is the case, is there any reason they cannot "go down fighting" with a slingshot rather than an AR-15?

[Anonymous]

OBAMA IS NO HITLER; The comparisons must EINHALT !

There are so very many nuanced DIFFERENCES between these two socialists:

• Hitler wrote only ONE book about himself, wallowing in his own angst, whereas Obama wrote TWO.

• Hitler's doctor gave him lots of psychotropic drugs, whereas Obama hallucinated a composite girlfriend without taking any drugs.

• Hitler built a vast network of highways, whereas Obama … [MORE…]

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never did say that the FATE of the Jews rested on losing their gun rights. That's what libs here turned it into in order to defend their own jackwagon theories. What I SAID was that, when given a CHOICE, Jews demonstrated they preferred to go down fighting. By taking guns away, Hitler robbed them of that choice. That was by design.

You are really amazing. You just seem to be making this discussion up as you go along. So, let's get things back on track:

1) This topic was started by someone who thinks Obama is like Hitler because he wants to disarm the population.
a) Does Obama want to disarm Americans? Yes, or No? My position is "no". What is yours?
b) Did Hitler try to disarm Germans? My position is that he expanded gun rights except for Jews. What is yours?

2) A spin-off of the original topic is whether the restrictions regarding guns placed on Jews prevented them from defending themselves.
a) My position is that it made no difference. What is your position?
b) If I understand you correctly, you believe that outcome would not have been much different, but Jews would have preferred to go out fighting. Is that a correct summary of your position?

3) Is it your position that Americans should arm themselves simply so that they can "go down fighting" when the big, bad government comes to get them? If that is the case, is there any reason they cannot "go down fighting" with a slingshot rather than an AR-15?

1
a) By his early voting record, i.e. endorsing Illinois handgun ban and opposing bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. It's important to point this out because local jurisdictions and states can restrict gun ownership. Now that he's President and has been sworn to uphold the Constitution (bwahahha), he knows he is facing impeachment if he puts in the full ban he believe in. What he will try to do is put such tight restrictions in place, it will effectively neuter the people.
b) Hitler disarmed Jews, not Germans. He needed the Germans armed to help him carry out the Holocaust.

2
a) My position is because the Jews were already disarmed, one cannot determine if it would have made a difference. Hitler made sure that wasn't a factor, and in doing so, I assume he had a reason. And 6 million Jews died for that reason.
b) I can't determine if the outcome would have been different had the Jews NOT been disarmed. What I do know is that the Jews WERE disarmed and when given the opportunity to fight back with weaponry in the Warsaw ghetto, did so. The right to self-defense is what's important, not the outcome.

3 Americans should not be disarmed because it is the law of the land. We have the right to self-defense, to protect life and liberty. Period. End of. If Obama doesn't like it, he can go through the process of getting the 2nd changed or dropped.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never did say that the FATE of the Jews rested on losing their gun rights. That's what libs here turned it into in order to defend their own jackwagon theories. What I SAID was that, when given a CHOICE, Jews demonstrated they preferred to go down fighting. By taking guns away, Hitler robbed them of that choice. That was by design.

You are really amazing. You just seem to be making this discussion up as you go along. So, let's get things back on track:

1) This topic was started by someone who thinks Obama is like Hitler because he wants to disarm the population.
a) Does Obama want to disarm Americans? Yes, or No? My position is "no". What is yours?
b) Did Hitler try to disarm Germans? My position is that he expanded gun rights except for Jews. What is yours?

2) A spin-off of the original topic is whether the restrictions regarding guns placed on Jews prevented them from defending themselves.
a) My position is that it made no difference. What is your position?
b) If I understand you correctly, you believe that outcome would not have been much different, but Jews would have preferred to go out fighting. Is that a correct summary of your position?

3) Is it your position that Americans should arm themselves simply so that they can "go down fighting" when the big, bad government comes to get them? If that is the case, is there any reason they cannot "go down fighting" with a slingshot rather than an AR-15?

1
a) By his early voting record, i.e. endorsing Illinois handgun ban and opposing bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. It's important to point this out because local jurisdictions and states can restrict gun ownership. Now that he's President and has been sworn to uphold the Constitution (bwahahha), he knows he is facing impeachment if he puts in the full ban he believe in. What he will try to do is put such tight restrictions in place, it will effectively neuter the people.
b) Hitler disarmed Jews, not Germans. He needed the Germans armed to help him carry out the Holocaust.

2
a) My position is because the Jews were already disarmed, one cannot determine if it would have made a difference. Hitler made sure that wasn't a factor, and in doing so, I assume he had a reason. And 6 million Jews died for that reason.
b) I can't determine if the outcome would have been different had the Jews NOT been disarmed. What I do know is that the Jews WERE disarmed and when given the opportunity to fight back with weaponry in the Warsaw ghetto, did so. The right to self-defense is what's important, not the outcome.

3 Americans should not be disarmed because it is the law of the land. We have the right to self-defense, to protect life and liberty. Period. End of. If Obama doesn't like it, he can go through the process of getting the 2nd changed or dropped.

So, I guess we agree on the following:

1) Obama will not be like Hitler unless he tries to disarm Jews;
2) Obama will not try to disarm Americans; and
3) Obama will try to put restrictions on guns -- something the Supreme Court ruled was constitutional.

Any arguments?

[Anonymous]

Given we are in America, and there are checks and balances, I would say that's accurate. But then, I never compared him to Hitler so I have no idea what you are trying to prove. Why you think I did is beyond me. Do I think he is a Marxist? You betcha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given we are in America, and there are checks and balances, I would say that's accurate. But then, I never compared him to Hitler so I have no idea what you are trying to prove. Why you think I did is beyond me. Do I think he is a Marxist? You betcha!

So you are just trading one hyperbole for another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given we are in America, and there are checks and balances, I would say that's accurate. But then, I never compared him to Hitler so I have no idea what you are trying to prove. Why you think I did is beyond me. Do I think he is a Marxist? You betcha!

So you are just trading one hyperbole for another.

Nope. I simply think his behavior and actions show me he's a Marxist. I don't see it as an exaggeration.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Given we are in America, and there are checks and balances, I would say that's accurate. But then, I never compared him to Hitler so I have no idea what you are trying to prove. Why you think I did is beyond me. Do I think he is a Marxist? You betcha!

If you are wondering what I was trying to prove with regard to Hitler, you may want to look at the subject of this thread.

If you believe Obama is a Marxist, you either don't know what a Marxist is, don't know anything about Obama, or simply don't have a lot of thinking capacity. I'll make no judgement as to which is the case. But, it is quite clear to anyone who knows anything about Marxism and Obama that Obama is not a Marxist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OBAMA IS NO HITLER; The comparisons must EINHALT !

There are so very many nuanced DIFFERENCES between these two socialists:

• Hitler wrote only ONE book about himself, wallowing in his own angst, whereas Obama wrote TWO.

• Hitler's doctor gave him lots of psychotropic drugs, whereas Obama hallucinated a composite girlfriend without taking any drugs.

• Hitler built a vast network of highways, whereas Obama … [MORE…]

I feel genuinely sorry for people who feel this type of garbage is clever/correct, along with the "Obama is a Marxist!" tribe. You are so far gone...

[Anonymous]

I'll take 'Who is Reverent Wright and Bill Ayers' for $20 Alex...