Fixed that for you.Pol Pothead wrote:Who made that comparison? There were two separate quotes from your previous post that I addressed individually. You posted that people can't win in an armed struggle against governments or armies, and I agreed but said it's worth the fight whoever the aggressors are or what era the violence happens or what the outcome is.Jock Jock wrote: But, no fuck that, are you really trying to compare 1940s NAZI Germany to 21st Century America, really? is it that bad? fucking hell what kind of idiots please don't take my killing toy away bullshit response is that??
And who the fuck cares if the Anti-Defamation League finds such comparisons insulting. Let them be insulted. Fuck them. Fuck your libtard political correctness.
You're need to equate gun ownership with penises only shows how your penis-infatuated brain works. I never refer to guns as toys, either, as you did.
Sounds like the Jews needed many, many more moral Germans and Poles to help defend themselves, not less.In 1943, armed Jews in the Warsaw ghetto fought the Nazis. Jews killed about 20 Nazis, but about 13,000 Jews died in the uprising.'
11-year old boy shoots 8-year old girl over puppies
Don't blame me I voted for Sanders
-
- Stabby McStaberson
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 699
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:50 pm
Yeah, well.... when you get that problem of getting rid of bad guys with murderous intents all sorted, let the rest of us know will ya? Then we'll have no potential need for lethal firearms. Until then, that has really no relevance in this discussion, does it?jm wrote:Fixed that for you.Sounds like the Jews needed many, many more moral Germans and Poles to help defend themselves, not less.
Last edited by Pol Pothead on Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
..and if you disagree with me, you are one billion times WORSE than HITLER!!!
I didn't insert the Nazis in this discussion.Pol Pothead wrote:Yeah, well.... when you get that problem of getting rid of bad guys with murderous intents all sorted, let the rest of us know will ya? Then we'll have no potential need for lethal firearms. Until then, that has really no relevance in this discussion, does it?jm wrote:Fixed that for you.Sounds like the Jews needed many, many more moral Germans and Poles to help defend themselves, not less.
Since they're here however and the subject has some currency, thank you Ben Sixgun Carson, consider :
"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.
The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning? Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews? What about public works — Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not. These are merely implements that can be used for good or ill, much as gun advocates like to argue about guns themselves. If guns don’t kill people, then neither does gun control cause genocide (genocidal regimes cause genocide).
Besides, Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?” he told Salon“
Don't blame me I voted for Sanders
-
- Stabby McStaberson
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 699
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:50 pm
Still not sure what the logical conclusion to that line of thinking is. Aggressive self defense in the face of overwhelming odds is probably pointless, so don't bother and just go meekly along with it and hope for mercy or divine intervention? You are all free to take that route. I'll go down with a fight, thanks.The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?” he told Salon“
..and if you disagree with me, you are one billion times WORSE than HITLER!!!
No. The logical conclusion is that the outcome in terms of the Jews' annihilation was not a function of gun control.Pol Pothead wrote:Still not sure what the logical conclusion to that line of thinking is. Aggressive self defense in the face of overwhelming odds is probably pointless, so don't bother and just go meekly along with it and hope for mercy or divine intervention? You are all free to take that route. I'll go down with a fight, thanks.The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?” he told Salon“
Don't blame me I voted for Sanders
Pol Pothead, Go play with your boom boom stick, you moronic childish fool
-
- Stabby McStaberson
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 699
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:50 pm
So more victims having more lethal arms would have what? ..made things worse? The murderers would have thought "Oh, were REALLY going to get you now since you're fighting back!"? I know I'd want a lethal weapon in my hand when the first troop trucks arrived.jm wrote:No. The logical conclusion is that the outcome in terms of the Jews' annihilation was not a function of gun control.Pol Pothead wrote:Still not sure what the logical conclusion to that line of thinking is. Aggressive self defense in the face of overwhelming odds is probably pointless, so don't bother and just go meekly along with it and hope for mercy or divine intervention? You are all free to take that route. I'll go down with a fight, thanks.The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?” he told Salon“
..and if you disagree with me, you are one billion times WORSE than HITLER!!!
-
- Stabby McStaberson
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 699
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:50 pm
Yeah, I knew a bullshit childish response like that wasn't far off from you. You are out of your depth. Stick to your name calling skill...it's better than your logic.Jock Jock wrote:Pol Pothead, Go play with your boom boom stick, you moronic childish fool
..and if you disagree with me, you are one billion times WORSE than HITLER!!!
You stick to living in fear, I'll stick to freedom, how's that?Pol Pothead wrote:Yeah, I knew a bullshit childish response like that wasn't far off from you. You are out of your depth. Stick to your name calling skill...it's better than your logic.Jock Jock wrote:Pol Pothead, Go play with your boom boom stick, you moronic childish fool
I agree the outcome probably would not have been worse. I hedge because if Jews early on had carried out armed resistance it's possible fewer would have been able to escape Germany. But that's a hypothetical. I agree with you better to die with a gun in your hand. I'd disagree with those who would argue the dead would be less dead or that gun control had anything to due with Hitter's rise or the Jews' destruction. I understand you are not arguing that but Carson and his supporters seem to be.Pol Pothead wrote:So more victims having more lethal arms would have what? ..made things worse? The murderers would have thought "Oh, were REALLY going to get you now since you're fighting back!"? I know I'd want a lethal weapon in my hand when the first troop trucks arrived.jm wrote:No. The logical conclusion is that the outcome in terms of the Jews' annihilation was not a function of gun control.Pol Pothead wrote:Still not sure what the logical conclusion to that line of thinking is. Aggressive self defense in the face of overwhelming odds is probably pointless, so don't bother and just go meekly along with it and hope for mercy or divine intervention? You are all free to take that route. I'll go down with a fight, thanks.The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?” he told Salon“
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/201 ... r-and-guns
Don't blame me I voted for Sanders
Classicandyinasia wrote:http://newsthump.com/2015/10/10/youll-t ... nfirm-nra/American gun owners have today confirmed that their right to defend their homes from pretend enemies is far more important than other people’s real children.
Sometimes satire is the only sense you get from an argument.
Pol Pothead wrote:Most likely, yes. But that's not the point. Have a look at some WW2 era footage of Polish Jews being lined up in front of trenches and shot in their heads by German soldiers ...row after row after row. Having guns and ammo might not have saved many of those victims in the long run, but it would have given some a chance to either avoid that specific fate that particular day or at least make the murderers pay dearly with blood of their own...as opposed to being meek and passive lambs to the slaughter. Some of us would choose to die fighting for our lives, even if the end result is inevitable.Jock Jock wrote: Some facts;
2 you cannot fight an army or a government or a police force with a gun, you will die.
You did, you used an example of NAZI Germany to attempt to forge a valid argument against gun control in modern day USA.Pol Pothead wrote:Who made that comparison?Jock Jock wrote: But, no fuck that, are you really trying to compare 1940s NAZI Germany to 21st Century America, really? is it that bad? fucking hell what kind of idiots please don't take my killing toy away bullshit response is that??
-
- Stabby McStaberson
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 699
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:50 pm
No I didn't. As i already told you, I responded separately to two different comments you made in your post. Your first quote said citizens "can't fight governments or armies or a police force because they will die". I responded to that claim by saying what you said might be true, but using Nazi atrocities in WW2 as an example, that sometimes you are going to die anyway, and it's worth the fight, even if the result is unquestionably inevitable.Jock Jock wrote: You did, you used an example of NAZI Germany to attempt to forge a valid argument against gun control in modern day USA.
The next quote of yours I responded to was not related to the first. You said you "would never have a gun in your home". I said that is your decision to make but I have the right to defend my family and will not hand that God-given responsibility over to some police force and hope they arrive in time if a couple raging meth-heads choose my residence.
Only a desperate person who can't argue logically would try to tie those together with the very lame "you are comparing the USA today with Nazi Germany?" crap. I'm done arguing with you, as it's like pistol whipping a retarded child. Sure it's fun for a minute or two, then you just have to move on.
..and if you disagree with me, you are one billion times WORSE than HITLER!!!
-
- Stabby McStaberson
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 699
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:50 pm
I would say SOME might have lived... or at the very least in the process have killed more German soldiers, leaving that many fewer to continue the war. When looking at history, it's easy to gloss over numbers of dead as a rounded 6 million or whatever. Historians really don't care whether the exact number is 6,000,005 or 5,999,995 in the overall context. I try to place myself in the position of a Polish Jewish farmer who was faced with the individual decision to take defensive action or take none, knowing full well the odds of success being next to nil. That farmer doesn't care abut 20 million dead or 6 million dead. He might care about the number 5...being his wife and 4 kids. Can he possibly delay the inevitable and give his family one small chance to get away while he stands next to his fellow villagers and takes a stand...a stand not remotely possible without firearms.jm wrote:[ I'd disagree with those who would argue the dead would be less dead or that gun control had anything to due with Hitter's rise or the Jews' destruction. I understand you are not arguing that but Carson and his supporters seem to be.
My question is, did that farmer want a gun in his hand when the Germans started to arrive? We both agreed that he most probably did. But the greater topic is about whether he should have the right to possess such a firearm...or more importantly, do other people who may or may not face the same persecution or threats of violence as this farmer get to make laws stopping him from owning a firearm because those privileged people don't fully understand the threat or give a rat's ass about his particular predicament. I think those questions are as valid in 1940 Poland, or for a black American protecting his family from violent KKK lynchers in 1947 Mississippi, or a man seeing the potential need to protect his family from violent criminals anywhere today.
By the way, for while at least, the Detroit police force was officially saying the response time for 911 (emergency calls) was averaging 55 minutes. Seems a few people who can't relate to such conditions are the ones bemoaning gun ownership by others.
..and if you disagree with me, you are one billion times WORSE than HITLER!!!
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
6 year old student shoots teacher. America
by pickledpepper » Sat Jan 07, 2023 7:16 am » in 'Not' Cambodia - 19 Replies
- 1553 Views
-
Last post by Dylan Quint
Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:52 am
-
-
-
Amber alert for missing 13 year old Khmer/American girl
by Alexandra » Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:08 pm » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 31 Replies
- 9671 Views
-
Last post by GMJS-440
Tue Aug 25, 2020 10:22 pm
-
-
-
Must 'Employer' pay 1 year work permit for 150 hours/year 'Volunteer'
by U-Guest » Sat Mar 27, 2021 3:20 pm » in Careers in Cambodia - 19 Replies
- 6418 Views
-
Last post by PSD_Kiwi
Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:00 pm
-
-
- 10 Replies
- 1204 Views
-
Last post by Bong Burgundy
Fri Mar 31, 2023 5:56 pm