More on the Myth of Hitler’s Gun Ban, Part 2


( a continuation of the previous post which was the continuation of a prior post)

Salient Point # 3: Yes, the Jews fought back. So what?

Of all the statements I made in my original post, the one that seems really to stick in the craw of the gunsters the most was this:

But the concept of a handful of citizens armed with hunting rifles and Saturday night specials fending off an army is delusional hubris peculiar to gun addicts.

That was just too much reality for some of them to take, and so they accused me of being not only full of bovine fecal matter, but of being (somehow) disrespectful to the victims of the Holocaust. One “rebuttal” even characterized my research as “outrageous” and “disturbing” (unlike, say, having a bunch of deranged individuals playing with loaded weapons).  Because, as some of them hastened to point out, some of the Jews did fight back, and did so most valiantly. And in particular the gunsters point to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as proof that my “opinion” is dead wrong.

Sometimes I really need a crowbar to pry my jaw off the  floor. I can’t imagine a more vibrant example of people arguing against their own position.

Yes, the Jews fought back, in Warsaw and many other places. They staged more than 100 acts of armed resistance, according to Wikipedia. Sometimes they did some damage, and a few of the perpetrators even lived to tell about it. And guess what? All of these insurgencies combined still failed to stop the Holocaust. So explain to me again exactly how mentioning them is supposed to discredit my conclusion?

I don’t mean to suggest that the Jews should not have resisted somehow, even violently. Desperate times call for desperate measures. But the odds were overwhelmingly against them, just as they are overwhelmingly against any group of armed citizens facing off against an armed government. Considering that their score was zero out of 100-plus at preventing the Holocaust, how can anyone believe that their acts of armed resistance prove the odds were in their favor?

Oh, wait. There’s something I forgot to include. The gunsters also maintain that even though the Jews were, in some cases, armed, they just didn’t have enough arms. If only the Jewish resistors could have gotten their hands on more hardware, they assert, the tide would have turned. They’re not even speculating about this; it’s something they absolutely and unequivocally know to be true.

Time out.

Could these possibly be the same gunsters who proclaim, loudly and at every opportunity, that “gun control doesn’t work”? And yet in the next breath they declare that beyond a shadow of a doubt, “gun control” is the one thing that made the Holocaust possible? Which is it, folks? Does “gun control” work or doesn’t it? Are you saying that it only works on Jews?

No, wait, it must work on any other oppressed people as well. Because according to the Gunster Gospel, the first thing a dictator does when seizing control is to take away people’s guns (even though an armed populace can effectively resist tyranny) and then he can commit genocide and do whatever else he pleases because the people are unarmed and therefore powerless (even though “gun control” doesn’t work). Everybody keeping up okay?

If, as the gunsters so often insist, people who are sufficiently motivated to get their hands on guns will do so no matter what kind of laws they are violating, then one must assume that the Jews were armed to the teeth. What more powerful motivation could there possibly be than survival? But no matter how adequate or inadequate their arsenal may have been, one thing is for certain: the Nazi arsenal was far superior.

Likewise, the gun nuts who are itching for a chance to take down Uncle Sam in a showdown at the corral seem to be convinced that if they only could acquire more and bigger toys, then the momentum would shift in their direction. Sorry, gun nuts; you will always be pitifully outnumbered and pitifully outgunned.

Salient Point # 4: The exceptions really aren’t.

It appears I may have goofed again. A moment ago, I stated that when a small band of armed citizens defend themselves against armed government forces, the odds are overwhelmingly against them. What I probably should have said instead was that the odds of their success are essentially nonexistent — at least if history is any guide. Because I can’t think of a single unequivocal exception to this rule.

The gunsters, however, are convinced that they can.  There are several examples in particular that they keep lobbing in my direction: Afghanis against Soviets, the South Vietnamese against the North Vietnamese and even (I kid you not) the American Revolution. But none of these qualifies as an instance of a small contingent of armed citizens defending themselves against their government.

In each of these conflicts, the insurgents formed an army and/or were aided by outside forces; in the first two, it was the United States supplying much of the firepower. In the Revolution, the colonists formed their own organized and trained army (not just a band of armed citizens) and they were substantially aided by other armies — most notably, that of France. (Sorry, gun nuts. I know many of you love to believe that the French are anti-American socialist pussies; but the truth is that to a very large extent you owe to them the liberty you so fervently claim to cherish.) In each of these wars, moreover, the defenders were warding off invaders on their home turf — which was not the case in Germany.

And what about the French Revolution? Yes indeed, those brie-nibblers did have their own revolt and it was indeed successful, but it was a multi-pronged social upheaval rather than just a military action. And it wasn’t fought by just a small group of people, but by a large contingent of revolutionaries, including soldiers, against a corrupt aristocracy.  Note also that they were on the offensive rather than the defensive end of the clash.

Such also was the case with the successful Cuban revolution, which probably stands the best chance of providing a solid exception. The victorious revolutionary force was quite small, but it employed guerilla tactics quite effectively, essentially assuming the character of a military unit. (As I’ve mentioned before, the dividing line between civilian and military factions is sometimes blurry.) Perhaps most significantly, the Cuban guerillas had the support of the people, who were fed up with the Batista regime.

Support is crucial in such situations, which is one of many reasons why the Tea Partiers would be crushed like bugs if they ever attempted to emulate Castro’s success by storming Washington. Not only would government forces have them woefully outnumbered and outgunned, but few citizens would have their back. Most Americans would rather stick with a duly elected president, even if they don’t particularly like him, than line up behind the likes of  Wayne LaPierre.  By the way, history failed to repeat itself in Cuba only a couple of years later, when a counter-revolution failed to overthrow Castro (who is yet another dictator whom the gun culture falsely accuses of banning guns).

Which brings us back to the Jews in Germany. Some detractors have suggested that it really wouldn’t have been necessary for them to win in a conflict with the Nazi troops; just by attracting the attention of the rest of the world, they could have drawn sympathetic reinforcements that could have toppled Hitler. In other words, if they’d fought back — which they did, many times over — with better weapons — which they were prevented from acquiring by “gun control” — which doesn’t work — then it would have prevented the Holocaust — which may or may not actually have happened, depending on which gunster you ask. Such a presumption, however, ignores the most crucial factor of all.

Salient Point # 5: Hitler had a more potent weapon.

It could be found even on the other side of the world, on the seat of every new Ford motor car that rolled off the assembly line, in the form of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, an apocryphal tome detailing how the Jews were supposedly scheming to take over the world. Henry Ford, a virulent anti-Semite, felt that every citizen (or at least every citizen who could afford to buy one of his automobiles) should have a complimentary warning about the Jewish menace.

It wasn’t just this one book that made the difference, by any means. Ford spread calumny about the Jewish people in other ways as well; he compiled his own anti-Semitic book, ran anti-Semitic rants in a newspaper he owned, and even supplied financial backing for the Nazi cause. Nor was he the only prominent American to do so. Numerous American tycoons and businesses provided financial and/or rhetorical support to Hitler and his conquest. Among them were William Randolph Hearst and a banking firm connected to Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W.

With that kind of bankroll, fueled by poisonous rhetoric, in support of the Nazis worldwide, it’s staggeringly naive to suggest that a small band of Jewish rebels, or even a large number of small bands of Jewish rebels, could have gained enough international traction to help them topple Goliath — particularly given that the Nazis controlled the media in Germany, and could censor and spin the news at their discretion.  And all the while, they were convincing people that in fact it was the Jews themselves who dominated the media. Thus they circulated illustrations like this one:

nazi propaganda

The Nazis were masters of propaganda, which saturated every level of their society at every age stratum. We’ve previously mentioned that the nursery rhymes their children were taught glorified weaponry. Additionally, the math problems they learned dealt with killing their enemies, invalids and other “undesirables”. Propaganda is arguably the most powerful weapon on earth, depending on how one defines power. The Nazis had one of the most potent arsenals of it in history; and the Jews were its prime target.

In sum, the notion that resistance by the Jews could have averted their fate — or that “gun control” was crucial to Nazi dominance — is wild speculation at best. There is scarcely a drop of evidence to support either conclusion. And an ocean of evidence to contradict them both.

A Parting Irony

And in concluding (I hope) the discussion of this topic that has dragged on much longer than I ever planned, I can’t help noting how ironic it is that the smears comparing President Obama to Hitler invariably come from right-wing extremists.  Because they themselves have much more in common with Nazism than does the president. No no no, I am not saying that they are Nazis (except for those who actually call themselves Nazis — we’ll allow them that privilege if they want it) but they at least lean in that general direction. Enough so that their likening Obama to Hitler is rather akin to the whoopee cushion calling the football flat.

Of course, if you want to play the reductio ad hitlerum game, you can always find some way in which Hitler resembles absolutely anyone. Even me; although I find Nazism detestable and see nothing the least bit admirable about Hitler, I have brown hair and a mustache and I’m a vegetarian and a writer and an amateur artist. Just like Adolf. Perhaps if you dug into his biography deeply enough, you might find that he once had a pet rabbit and raised underwear on his high school’s flagpole just as I once did.

But when we speak of the ideological kinship between Nazism and contemporary American “conservatism”, we’re referring to values that are far more fundamental: jingoistic nationalism, hawkishness, corporatism, patriarchalism, strong alliance between church and state, and “traditional values”.  Not to mention a raging hard-on for firearms. If you look at the list of Americans and American firms who aided and supported Hitler, you’ll find that they were almost entirely right-wing. And years later, it was a Republican president who honored Nazi soldiers.

Additionally, both Nazism and “conservatism” revolve to a great extent out of demonizing the others; moreover, they largely even target the same scapegoats: communists, secularists, homosexuals, university intellectuals, unions, religious minorities, and assorted “liberals”. And like the Nazis, the “conservatives” also saturate the media with accusations that those whom they most despise are really the ones who manipulate the media:


This is a cartoon intended to depict how “liberals” supposedly control the media. Notice anything familiar about it? It was used no fewer than three times on the popular right-wing website (The man is gone but his brilliant legacy lives on.) It was eventually removed from two of the posts in question, but the last I heard, the bright folks at Breitbart still have not apologized for what might charitably be termed a dire lapse in judgment.

I may have said this before, but it bears at least one reiteration. Whenever group A wages an intensive campaign to demonize group B, it’s wise to be more suspicious of the former than the latter. If there’s one lesson the Holocaust really should have taught us, that’s it.


  1. My primary point has been, and remains, that the central issue is not about individuals getting together and overthrowing a tyrannical government, but about the right of an individual to arm him or her self and thus perhaps be able to save himself or herself from and escape a tyrannical government.

    As for your close, liberals demonize straight white guys aplenty.

    • If citizens uniting have such a hard time resisting a tyrannical government, how can a citizen standing alone expect to do so? I’d never claim that no “liberal” ever demonizes anyone. The point is that with “conservatives” demonizing is fundamental and nearly obligatory.

      • A citizen alone just has to get to safety. That could be as little, as, for example, holding a couple of border guards at bay. For some reason, liberals can’t seem to get off the straw man that the entire armed forces can’t sumultaneously come after everybody individually. I think this is a symptom of the left worshiping government as a god; the notion that government is not all-knowing and all-powerful is something the left just can’t seem to grasp.

      • Actually, “the left” and “liberals” are generally straw men for more complex issues. And I’ve never said people shouldn’t defend themselves where necessary; in fact, I believe I mentioned that some Jews survived because they did fight back. But somehow, I get the impression that individual self-preservation is not what gunsters have in mind when they mention “another 1776” or “Second Amendment remedies” to electoral disappointment. Hey, the strategy you seem to be banking on if the big bad guvmint ever comes after you just might work. Best of luck.

      • Pop your first paragraph makes no sense.

        The “gunsters” as you refer to them are saying very very simply

        If you control/restrict guns you allow the opportunity for the masses to be oppressed.

        Somehow you are saying that they are supporting and not supporting gun control when in fact they are consistent. They are saying with gun control the holocaust would happen. If they didn’t restrict guns (no gun control) the jews would be armed. Reread that paragraph.

        I think both sides are really diminishing the potent power behind the holocaust. We have never lived in a one dimentional world. Yet we are speaking of it as one.

        Hopefully our thoughts and actions are alittle more complex than 1 cause or reason for something like Hitler to happen.

        It is a predator/prey scenario. The predator always has a back up and a bail out plan. If he/she is not winning their prize, they starve. In order to try again they must stay alive and tweak their plan. (Normandy was Eisenhower’s plan A he had no plan B)

        Hitler, before he finally was able to get into power was in fact a loser. He was not very successful in many endeavors he previously tried in many areas of his life.

        Hershey filed bankruptcy 6 times before building his chocolate empire.

        Things are not just black and white and there are many components to a complex plan.

        As I read these comments I can’t help but see from the American Revolution to Civil War to French Revolution, to impaling Vlad the Impaler in eastern europe, some cases or instances that these generalities are not correct.

        Civil War the south should have not survived as long as it did because they just didn’t have the supplies and money the north did. They also had a more diversified by necessity army troops.

        American Revolution same thing. Without outside help from France we would not be the USA today.
        If these generalizations worked there would not be betting on sports. Because we would already know the outcome!

        There are alot more factors that have to be taken into consideration. Again, if several things happened or didn’t happen the results would or would not necessarily be the same. We just don’t know. Plain and simple.

  2. Here’s an interesting letter that appeared in the Arizona Daily Sun:

    To the editor:

    It’s utterly amazing to what lengths some will go to justify the unrestricted availability of any type of weapon in this country in the name of freedom. To equate gun control in Germany in the 1920s with the rise of Hitler and Antisemitism and the rise of tyrannical governments in other countries is a gross distortion of history and an insult to our own democracy. As someone who actually lived through the decaying years of Nazi Germany as a child and subsequent Soviet takeover of East Germany and who lost many relatives to both regimes, I am appalled by such simplistic explanations.

    First of all, there is absolutely no parallel between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and a 200-year plus established and stable democracy like ours.

    Both Germany and Russia transitioned directly from 19th century imperialist regimes to military dictatorships in an age of worldwide economic turmoil. Neither nation had any experience with democracy, humane constitutions nor an elected power balance between president, Congress and an independent judicial systems. Hitler rose to power on the backs of disenfranchised workers, massive unemployment, social unrest and a near-death struggle in Germany between fascism and communism. Stalin’s rise was even more convoluted and treacherous in a country ravaged by wars, illiteracy and poverty. Both tyrants got great mileage out of blaming most of their social ills on Jews, gypsies, immigrants and other minorities. No matter how well-armed citizens of either state had been, they would not have stood a chance.

    In short, to advocate that citizens in this country, which has bestowed real democracy on so many others, should be allowed weapons “equal” to the military in order to guard against the rise of some imaginary dictatorship is absurd. Does equal include tanks, artillery and missiles, too? That’s why we have a “well-regulated militias” called the Army and National Guard who seem to have done a pretty good job protecting our freedoms so far.



    Touche, Klaus.

  3. POP,

    Great comments in The myth of Hitler’s gun ban part 2,

    Yes, it is almost a political axiom that whoever attacks the other group with the most extreme and venomous charges, often is paradoxically projecting the faults of his own group in order to vilify the other.

    You make a good point about the contradictory fact that gun advocates believe that, even if a relatively small but oppressed group had access to firearms, they could absolutely prevail against their oppressors. Yet in the next breath, groups like the NRA like to claim, that gun control measures don’t work–implying that even if Hitler did strictly and absolutely control all weapons, it would not have prevented the relatively small groups that resisted, from ultimately prevailing anyway–since such gun control measures cannot and do not ever work.

    I have carried on some online discussions with many conservatively biased comenters who never tire of warning about the sinister influence of Big Brother, yet most of them fail to realize that BB does not always come disguised as the group in power—sometimes it comes as a result of the Joe McCarthys and the Karl Roves, who will go to any lengths to influence the public by using any false and fear inducing lies that they can tell and sell. Sometimes it comes in the form of a candidate like Romney who sells his etch-a-sketch personality in any expedient way possible. BB can also come disguised in a Bishops robes, who pushes the gospel of Christ while repeatedly engaging in acts of sexual molestation, or it can come in the form of many fundamentalist who believe they, and they alone, are the ones who understand God’s will, and therefore, are the ones who should tell everyone else what to believe. OH, but we do all have free will, and God wants us to use the brains HE gave us–that is, unless we reach the “wrong”conclusions!

    Dictatorial politicians, as well as dogmatically religious people can all be the servants of Big Brother. And as Dylan said before he took a little side trip into the loving arms of the “born again,” and back again, “The executioners face is always well hidden!

  4. Please, all of you, take a look at what is happening in Syria, a country I like and have been to on numerous occasions. This is what lack of gun control, a dictatorship and religion, does to a country that is the cradle of our civilization. T.

  5. Gruss Gott!!! I hope the underwear was clean and without skid marks, you could have been mistaken for an Argentinian!!!! T

    • Actually, I should have said I assisted in raising the underwear. They were clean to begin with, but the guy who actually had the idea dirtied them. (Artificially.)

      • POP,

        Why do these masters of propaganda not realize that none of our Constitutional rights, comes with a guarantee to be perfect as is, or, never needing to be altered due to time or need? The first Amendment does not permit falsely screaming FIRE, in a crowded theater and endangering the lives of those who try to escape during the ensuing mass stampede. And, there are also laws against slander and Libel or, even deliberately calling 911 without any real reason to do so.

        None of the voting amendments guarantees us the right to vote more than once for the same candidate in the same elections, or to initiate various forms of voter fraud. Even the 21st Amendment to repeal prohibition, was required to be ratified by the States within a period of seven years.

        Personally I do not object to the rights of civilians to own fire arms of reasonable power for personal self-protection. However, when ownership of certain weapons only endangers the public, the 2nd Amendment needs to exclude those weapons in order to remove their unnecessary danger. Just like fully automatic weapons such as machine guns have been carefully regulated for nearly 80 years (because private ownership of them creates a danger to pubic welfare) our prudent regulations of other “ARMS”, sets the precedent not to take the word “ARMS” as literally condoning the use of any weapon that a private citizen may want to own!

        Aside from the fact that I personally believe certain semi-automatics are capable of efficiently killing more people than guns without detachable and quickly changeable magazines, I can understand why some gun owners might not think these types of weapons–firing only one shot with each pull of the trigger–are considered dangerous because they come with such a tactical limitation. What I can’t understand however, is why gun advocates insist on not limiting the number of rounds their magazines can contain? No one needs a magazine (like the one used in Aurora) capable of firing 100 rounds without changing or reloading! So, I remain unconvinced that when, even an experienced shooter must pause for a few seconds to change clips, that this pause will not provide a precious window of opportunity for some victims who might run around a corner, or exit a building by using another available window or door.

        The utter paranoia expressed by Mr. Smith, about the supposedly sinister intentions of the Obama administration to control the populous by force, brings absurdity to a new level! Does the author expect the entire military and its leaders, to blindly follow the orders of ANY president, let alone one that is a liberal Democrat–even though most military men probably favor the freedoms granted by the second Amendment. Will such a dictatorial takeover successfully be done and effectively force a sinister liberal agenda —again, especially when the pentagon is unlikely to yield its control to a Liberal group of non-military men?

        We do not live in a Banana republic, and we have checks and balances on the use of power in our Constitution! There are many conservative members of Congress who could effectively launch an impeachment effort against any President who dared to act as a dictator and attempt to use powers not allowed to him by voters, the Congress, and the Constitution. What I find more upsetting than any incredible and fictional scenario created to bolster the ideas of gun fanatics, is that they might find a large enough audience to actually believe in their fiction! If the people are that easily manipulated by such an absurd story from people such as these con men, then the true value of our Democracy is being held ransom. Just imagine if Joe McCarthy could have removed any legislator from Congress merely because his ridiculous claims about rampant communism remained unchallenged!

        The worse scenario that can happen to any human population when it is manipulated by a dictator, is that this dictator’s propaganda goes unchallenged just because such an individual craving power can establish a gullible following.

        So we must rightly allow these charlatans to continue exercising their constitutional rights to free speech–but just not allow them to go unchallenged when distributing their brand of madness! However, any who read this post are probably already busy portraying every word I say as being audacious lies. To them I recommend taking the advise in the message expressed by the POP’s blog and to have courage enough to challenge the thinking and ideas of various propagandists who undertake, “THE GLORIOUS WORK OF THOSE WHO WANT TO DO YOUR THINKING FOR YOU!”
        But know doubt such people will already be disregarding any possibility that their leaders are wrong–which is the the true way for anyone to enable the establishment of a dictatorship!

      • The First Amendment by its plain language only applies to laws by Congress, judicial legislation notwithstanding.

        Lets disarm the government to a significant degree. It doesn’t need so much firepower, either. We need to stop policing the world, bring some sanity into drug policy, and take some other measures. If government has less firepower, it takes away a major part of the justification for individuals having so much firepower.

      • It may be true that the government and the rest of us, might be better off if our Government were also required to cut back on the weapons it has, however, I do think that presently the government has the need to use many weapons–especially in regards to waging more than one war at a time. And although there is undoubtedly immense waste in the Pentagon, it would be remiss to consider any kind of large scale reduction of the arms it uses–except for the possibility, the realization that we REALLY don’t need certain multi-million dollar planes etc.

        The point of controlling civilian ownership of deadly weapons, revolves around the fact that having them may ultimately endanger the public–like the unfortunate victims shot at the theater in Colorado. But I don’t have any fear that our government will drive tanks into our living rooms, or will want to control us completely and without some practical reason. We did lay that on honest Americans of Japanese descent during WW2, but we have hopefully learned from that mistake and are ready to preserve the civil rights of all Americans.

        For sure our military is currently bloated and much larger than many other Armed forces combined, but it exists primarily to protect us. so,I see the issue with the Pentagon revolving around cost containment and frugality, unlike the issue of private gun ownership, which involves primarily the preservation of public safety.

        Although some gun advocates believe that Obama is just using an incident like the shooting in Newtown, in order to make a dictatorial power grab, there is another more rational and simple motivation. It has to do, primarily with the grief shared by the heartsick parents of the many beautiful children murdered by a gunman who had access to a semi-automatic weapon–as well as many other gunmen who have ended precious human lives with those same weapons elsewhere. The military need for less weaponry comes from a matter of economics. The shootings at places like Newtown, and the attempt to limit the weapons that are often used in such shooting, comes from a different place entirely –the grief stricken hearts of their grieving relatives, and their loved ones, who sincerely want to finally do something about it! A big difference indeed!

  6. “Propaganda is arguably the most powerful weapon on earth,…”

    This has not been lost on the people at Fox News and the NRA, to cite two examples. Every society has a segment of the population eager to believe the worst of people who are different from them, and the propagandists target them first, knowing they will influence others. The only way to keep it from spreading is for responsible, respected people in power to push back forcibly.

    That’s what is so scary about the loony right – they’ve been at this for over 30 years, getting wilder and wilder – and no one in power on the right has ever said, “Enough!” That’s because lunacy is now all they have to win future elections.

    It will be very interesting to see what the NRA is going to pull out of their ass to derail the current push for modest gun laws. Whatever it is, it will be something audacious and jaw dropping. They fight for keeps, country be damned.

    • Trakker,

      What really scares me, is the way honest and established facts have been distorted, lied about, or ignored for so long, that the public seems to be losing awareness, at the present time, about just what IS the truth. And, another upsetting observation is that, whatever group (most often contemporary Republicans) is dispensing its outrageous propaganda) part of the strategy seems to be to project onto an antagonist the same faults that the group that is lying, is actually most guilty of.

      I’m not saying Democrats or liberals are beyond reproach and don’t also (at times) also distort the truth, but they are less brazen about it, and they do it much less often—I’m sure this point is debatable, but, it is, in my opinion, backed up by observable facts i.e. Republicans are attempting outrageous voter suppression tactics on groups who normally vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, and then rationalize their claims by accusing Democrats of massive fraud by way of using individual voter misrepresentation on a large scale, which the State Photo IDs they want, are supposed to prevent. But this type of fraud is more rare than being struck by lightening, and, has never been proven to happen on anything like a grand scale (but don’t get me started)!

      It is also Republicans who mostly respond to lobbying attempts launched by big oil and other special interests, and who, nearly always promote legislation in favor of large businesses–ones that have been successfully preventing us from taking anywhere near the action required to diminish the effects of man-made global warming. They do this by employing their own “scientists and experts” to lie, distort and misrepresent the significance of the smallest errors in data, which effectively casts doubt on a subject which climate scientists almost unanimously agree exists and by continuing to deny — mankind is dangerously altering the environment thorough our voracious appetite for carbon based fuels.

      Isn’t it funny how the scientists and experts who disagree about, or totally reject this nearly unanimous conclusion shared by at least 97% of reputable climate scientists, nearly always work for mega companies like Exxon Mobile? Isn’t it also true that most of us who want advise about our health would see a doctor, or who want their plumbing fixed would hire a plumber, or who, if wanting to learn Calculus, would probably study under a bona fide Mathematics teacher etc…etc? So, how have we let global warming deniers, who know much less than Nobel Prize winning climate scientists, suddenly be the ones we trust to tell us the truth?–even though the few that disagree just happen to work for or be payed by, the oil industry, isn’t this a perfect case of letting the fox guard the hen house?

      Unfortunately the reasons we believe in the propaganda spread by ruthless deniers , or people who seek to manipulate the public, is because these Dictators and charlatans offer us believable ways to rationalize what we fear, or what we don’t fully understand, and, as in the case of global warming, is just too troublesome and inconvenient to accept.

      I believe it is totally true, that people can be controlled much more effectively by someone skilled at the use of propaganda, then by any authority who might deny us the use of any kinds of guns. But even if all guns aren’t confiscated anyway (as is NOT being proposed) many gun nuts are white knuckling and holding on to the ones they have out of fear, and, are playing right into the hands of the money coffers supporting the NRA! Once these lies are accepted, we all can only agree to believe them at our own risk–lest we too are robbed of the power to use our own intelligent, logical, and sound, discrimination!

  7. Something very interesting happened when this post was linked at another blog,
    One of the comments someone posted included this:

    “Hey, misrepresentation of our statements posed as a Gotcha moment.

    We say that Gun Control doesn’t work as far as reducing crime goes, but that it does achieve the goal of a disarmed citizenry that can be ruled over with greater ease by a well armed government.”

    The poster goes on to lump anyone (me for example) who deflates gun culture myths into the same camp with supporters of Hitler and Holocaust deniers.

    Rather ironic that gun fanatics — who frequently say that what Obama is doing is just like what Hitler is doing (and hence the point of this whole chain of discussion) will suddenly say, “No, wait, they’re totally different”, when it suits their purpose.

    Yes, there’s a difference between a totalitarian regime (e.g.., that of Hitler) suppressing civilian activity (including gun ownership) and a representative government (e.g.., the U.S.) passing legislation to curb violence. I believe I’ve been making that point repeatedly. But the gunsters say they’re one and the same — if and only if it suits their purpose at the moment.

    Note also that a successful gun ban (such as that falsely attributed to the Nazis) would require the nearly total deprivation of guns among the targeted population in order to be successful, while democratically legislative efforts to restrict guns (such as those practiced in the U.S.) would require depriving only a small number of people from acquiring guns in order to be a success. And the gunsters would have you believe that an attempt to eliminate guns completely invariably succeeds, while an attempt to eliminate just a few of them invariably fails.

    • Contradiction seems to be the life blood of gun rights advocates.

      I posted a note of support for Colorado’s new gun legislation on a state senator’s Facebook page, in which I asked her to stand with Colorado citizens concerned with rising gun violence.

      Another individual sarcastically stated that gun violence was at an all time low (as if that disproved my claim that gun violence was on the rise), then immediately asked me what the high rates of gun crime in Chicago and Washington DC told me about the effectiveness of gun control laws. That genius managed to contradict himself practically in the same breath.

      Talk about double-think.

      What is interesting about this is that later I discovered that when Chicago banned guns in 1982 (?; not sure of the exact details), gun violence declined until 2010, when the Supreme Court declared the ban unconstitutional. When cheap guns became available again, gun violence skyrocketed.

      Talk about cognitive dissonance.

      • Precisely. As a matter of fact, I’m planning a post in the near future specifically about the irony and self-contradictions of the gun culture.

      • Biochemborg,

        And isn’t Chicago one of the large cities with strict gun laws that apply only within city limits, not in the surrounding areas in the rest of Illinois?–thus allowing guns to be easily brought in from these outlying areas?

        Gun advocates always point out that many studies have been done which fail to find a link between gun control and decreased crime rates–however, upon examination, there are many analytic errors in the way these studies were done—such as important factors which were not included in them i.e. such as the presence of many grandfathered guns that were previously in circulation, and seeing causation in crime trends that may have happened even if no changes were ever made in gun laws.

        Often gun advocates claim that the studies they love to quote, are a simple and common sense affirmation that gun regulations don’t work. But, they never seem to understand that there are a host of factors that remain unknown or which were not included in those studies. In fact, a completely accurate study may be impossible without the availability of a control group made up of other gun owners existing in exactly the same area, at exactly the same time–a very tall order to fill.

        About the double talk involving a supposed failure of gun regulations to lower crime rates, but completely able to dissuade armed resistance, what I hear being said is that, new regulations would fail to prevent criminals from acquiring guns, while a oppressed minority, under similar or identical regulations, would lose any chances of ever obtaining guns. Since criminals often have long records, and, rely on the use of force to commit crimes, law enforcement is more likely to monitor what they say, do or, buy, just as the Jews were no doubt watched in pre–WW2 Germany. So, if both groups have the similar difficulties and handicaps between obtaining weapons, it makes no sense that one would continue to obtain them but the other (German Jews) would not!

        Although the Jews were denied many basic rights and were seen as the cause of all social problems, isn’t it true that they also had guns in their possession before Hitlers rise to power, and wouldn’t they also have had the opportunity to obtain more weapons illegally in one way or another–with sufficient motivation? So, for criminals gun regulations cannot keep weapons out of their hands, but for enemies of the State, those same regulations would absolutely have little or no effect?—quite a claim, and apparently only recently recognized as a possible talking point for discrediting needed regulations! Since I also have never heard it mentioned in any rebuttals, in any newspapers or online forums, until now. So, if a clever enough mind is put to work there is always a spin available in order to defend false claims and innacurrate facts!

      • Stop stereotyping all gun rights advocates as having the same beliefs.

        I don’t claim gun control doesn’t reduce gun deaths or gun crime in the short run. What I claim is that in the long-run, governments kill far more people than die from guns in the short-run, and that the difference in the amount of killing is so massive, that in the long-run, having a right to bear arms almost certainly in the net saves lives.

      • Yes, ABS, I should point out that gun advocates often point to studies done about gun control to justify their claims but NOT always. However there ARE a great many who share the belief that the 2nd Amendment is written in stone and guarantees owning any kind of ARMS desired. But the word ARMS implies any kind of weapon, and, if taken literally, would be justification for private citizens to own any kind of weapons desired.

        I am someone who believes that less destructive (or less efficient) weapons than the many semi-automatic designed to look similar to actual assault weapons like machine-guns, should be allowed, but that, certain semi-automatics like the ones used in Aurora and Newtown should not! But even more than that, I cannot understand the resistance to the idea of prohibiting detachable magazines that hold 30 or more clips. I don’t care if anyone feels the need to have drum magazines that hold 100 rounds of more–this is not necessary and posses a real danger to public safety. I also think school marshals in plain clothes might help fend off future attacks in pubic places, but, I also believe in gun registration and truly effective background checks. Also, that the Assault Weapons ban of 1994 had so little teeth that it was little more than a joke.

        As far as your fear about needing to defend yourself from the Government itself—I think you are seeing a threat that isn’t even there. We have elected representatives in Congress who share power, and any President is quickly subject to impeachment proceedings if he steps out of line. We also have a military establishment which I believe would be mostly in favor of gun ownership and capable of refusing the orders of a completely mad President! Will such a president try to command the military to attack itself?Hate to rain on your paranoid parade, but it just ain’t gonna happen! I also don’t expect to convince you, but it still ain’t gonna happen–ever!

      • ABS:

        Of course, not all gun-rights advocates believe the same things, but enough do that “gun-rights advocates” can be used a collective term, just as gun-rights advocates use “liberal” as a collective term.

        Then again, if people like you critiqued your colleagues when they use bogus arguments, it might be more obvious which of you believe what.

        There is simply no evidence that the US government has, throughout its history, killed far more of its own citizens than have died as a result of gun violence. That accusation is an article of faith based on ideology, not an established fact.

      • I in no way assert that the U.S. government has killed more of its own citizens than other U.S. gun violence has. I actually don’t know the answer to that question – does one count the slaughters of Native Americans, or the Civil War? Anyway, with respect to the point I was making, lets put that question aside.

        Certainly governments around the world have slaughtered more of their own people in the last 100 years than have been killed due to non-governmental gun violence. And maybe one major reason that the U.S. government hasn’t been among those governments killing so many of its own people is because so many of our citizens are armed, that would-be despots do not even try to attain power in the first place (let alone exercise it).

      • “I in no way assert that the U.S. government has killed more of its own citizens than other U.S. gun violence has.”

        But you referred to “governments” as a collective and offered no qualifier that would have excluded the US government. Not being able to read your mind, I couldn’t know whether you had excluded America from your collective.

        “…does one count the slaughters of Native Americans, or the Civil War?”

        As reprehensible as the Indian Wars were, at the time the American Indian tribes were considered to be sovereign nations, not US citizens.

        The Civil War is more complex, but the North generally believed the South were rebels who had voluntarily placed themselves beyond the protection of the Constitution. The South believed they were a sovereign country separate from the US and so were no longer US citizens.

        For your argument to make any sense, evidence of the US government killing bona fides US citizens in a peacetime situation would have to be offered. Since you admit you know of no such evidence, I am willing to let the question drop.

        “Certainly governments around the world…”

        While the debate over gun violence is certainly global, our main concern is the meaning and extent of the 2nd Am. How other nations handle this problem is immaterial.

        “And maybe one major reason that the U.S. government hasn’t been among those governments killing so many of its own people is because so many of our citizens are armed, that would-be despots do not even try to attain power in the first place (let alone exercise it).”

        Quite frankly, this is a specious argument. I could claim that one reason there has been no nuclear war is because every morning I face east, place my hand on my rear, bow, and chant, “Ipso fatso nun.” I can’t prove it works, but so far there’s been no nuclear war.

        Yet anyone who would take my argument seriously and praise my efforts is a fool.

      • No, one sounds reasonable, while the other does not (and that’s only because I deliberately described an unreasonable argument to demonstrate how ridiculous both arguments are); sounding reasonable is not the same as being logical. Neither argument is logical because they both commit the same fallacy: both assume that an apparent correlation is actually a causation.

        For your argument to be taken seriously, you would need to provide evidence that the presence of an armed American citizenry actually prevents the US government from turning despotic. Otherwise it’s just an article of faith based on your ideology.

      • I’m not asserting that there has been an actual benefit, just that it should be considered as a possibility. Obviously, there’s no real way to prove it, just like all sorts of things that can be proven but that are accepted wisdom. Yes, it sounds reasonable, because its plainly obvious that rational individuals assess the relative strength of their adversaries before engaging them in conflict.

      • ABS,

        “I’m not asserting that there has been an actual benefit, just that it should be considered as a possibility. Obviously, there’s no real way to prove it, just like all sorts of things that can be proven but that are accepted wisdom. Yes, it sounds reasonable, because its plainly obvious that rational individuals assess the relative strength of their adversaries before engaging them in conflict.”

        As Biochemborg affirms, “a possibility” means very little in way of offering a sound argument. Even if something is considered reasonable by you, that doesn’t validate it as a truly reasonable course of action. So, If you want to argue about whether our (United States) government has killed more citizens in various wars than the death toll caused by unauthorized civilian use of personal weapons,You must provide an accurate mortality figure for each of these conflicts throughout our history. But anyway, even if astronomical numbers of our citizens have died as a result of the Wars we fought, how does this justify other deaths due to illegally acquired guns? It’s like deciding that automobile operating licenses as well as registration and license plate renewals are meaningless because tens of thousands of Americans have died on our highways each year. In reality, registering and providing licenses and insurance for our vehicles, undoubtedly does save many lives–potentially quite a few each year. But, since we cannot add up all of those who MIGHT have died each year if vehicle and traffic laws were NOT in effect, we can assume that such numbers would be great.

        Accordingly the merits of gun control measures are not in that they can absolutely stop all shooters—but rather that they are common sense measures which might prevent many gun attacks in the future.

        I agree that guns don’t kill people, people kill people–but how does that justify making weapons that are proficient in exacting a human toll, so easily accessible to those who shouldn’t have them? Some, like the Newtown shooter may take them from a relative’s collection, but others are able to buy them with little difficulty on the Internet. So, Making it more difficult to obtain weapons illegally over the Internet, and requiring homes to place their weapons under lock and key–accessible only to the legal owners–would obviously help keep many of them out the hands of anyone who shouldn’t have one.The March/April 2013 issue of Mother Jones reports that 43% of homes with guns and kids, have at least one unlocked firearm, and, one study concerning guns kept in homes, found that, 1/3rd of 8-12 year old boys who found a handgun, pulled the trigger.

        Obviously there are many ways that we can prevent serious gun deaths and crimes, but we will need some improved regulations to do so. You or I might never desire to use guns for mass murder, but I would hate to give mine to anyone just released from prison for committing a federal crime because obviously, this would only increase the odds of a “bad man” using a gun for criminal purposes. So, I would rather prevent “bad men” from acquiring guns in the first place, rather than eventually standing them down in a violent gun battle with with them or anyone else even if I did represent the “good”guy . Out of sight–out of mind. Out of mind—out of Sandy Hook or an Aurora movie theater! Why not?!

      • Its a price we pay for freedom, and, in my opinion but not yours, well worth it; I’m willing to risk paying it.

      • Abs,

        As long as your actions or politics don’t increase the likelihood of the wrong person getting the wrong gun, and therefore threaten the safety of myself or many other Americans, then, God–speed! However, if you believe the physical availability of deadly weapons for those who are criminals, insane, or merely foolish people, does not pose an increased threat to innocent people, than I will certainly oppose your beliefs.

        A thousand “bad guys,” may live on yours or my block, but if they have no way to access firearms, then I need not worry that they might attack me with one. But if just one “bad guy,” is able to purchase a weapon without a sufficient background check, or from someone else who originally purchased it, everyone on my block is exposed to needless danger. And, a 100 round magazine is a clear winner for the most dangerous use of a weapon, as opposed to a stabbing assault done with a knife!

        It you are as honorable as you feel, then you should have no trouble qualifying for having personal weapons. But you are going to get a machine gun, bazooka, or heat seeking portable missile launcher etc you’ll never get my permission to do so–because, allowing private citizens to own such weapons is an obvious danger to other citizens as well, and, I will do everything in my power to keep you from obtaining these types of weapons.

        While I agree that the public should be allowed to have some weapons, but, I do not interpret the 2nd amendment’s referral to, the right to bear ARMS, as a literal invitation to bear any ARMS desired. Even the voting rights amendments do not allow me to vote more than once for the same candidate in the same election, and, Neither can I shout “death to the infidels!” in a crowded theater.

        Freedom without limits is very close to anarchy, so I will never give up my respect for the safety of myself and other Americans by destroying their rights to safety! This is a price NONE of us needs to pay!

      • Again, Peter, you just don’t seem to grasp that your view of safety is, in my opinion, short-sighted. In my view, I am the one advocating for safety, since in the long-run, I believe we are safer with individuals being able to own substantial firepower, even though there will inevitably be tragedies such as Sandy Hook in the short-run.

      • History knows few cases of armed insurrections defeating a powerful and repressive Government, and in our American system of Checks and balances, where elected officials share power, and the President can be easily impeached for committing irresponsible acts, those who fear a government of military take over, are more paranoid than they are factual.

        As I have said in previous posts, For what purpose would Obama, for instance, try to remove all of our guns. The military by and large, approves of 2nd amendment rights, and will not blindly obey any President who attempts an irrational effort to solidify all government power. Before you could say, “where’s your birth certificate,” the President would be impeached and rejected by the American public. If the military acted alone, it would not have the unquestioning support to successfully enable a military coup, and such a take over in our society is pure fantasy.

        You probably think I am Naive for trusting our system, but your judgement is misplaced. I have always been an enthusiastic supporter of Obama, and, even I would want him impeached if he attempted such a crass takeover. I dare say, almost all of my fellow Democrats would agree that an autocratic ruler is not conducive for fulfilling the American dream.

        There are many cases where laws apply to prevent harm to the public, and foolishly enabling almost anyone to acquire any weapon, definitely qualifies as being contrary to our need for public safety—safety not designed by whichever party is in the Whitehouse, but determined by an earnest need of all to prevent the massacre of innocent school children and others who should not have to be endangered!

        Every politician and party make use of opportune moments to advance its own agendas, but, this doesn’t mean that each party doesn’t believe in the morality of their actions.

        Some people see a definite conspiracy involved in GW Bush’s relationship with Saudi Arabia and because he failed to heed several warnings about a terrorist attack on 911. As much as I disagree with our governments reasons for entering the Iraq war, and as much as I am antagonized by many policies used by the Bush Whitehouse, I can guarantee you that NO American President would deliberately permit the killing of 3000 innocent people in the World Trade towers! Even Bush must have (rightly or wrongly) believed that the Iraq war was necessary. This is also true about any fantasies where American Presidents or other politicians succeed in completely controlling the government. If that is the type of imaginary scenario you use to avoid real and effective background checks that would keep weapons PHYSICALLY out of the hands of those who might use them to kill innocent children and just about any other American, then I feel you are the one jeopardizing my safety and the safety of others not those who merely take advantage of lax and under-enforced regulations. Your scenario is made primarily out of fantasy–not reality!

        Although I don’t expect most of the proposed gun control legislation to pass, I can’t tell you enough how much I disagree with your imaginary rationalization for the proliferation of easily obtained and very lethal weapons by just about anybody who wants one. On the surface this may not seem to be true, but the 1994 laws were little more than an ineffective farce that completely failed to prevent gun manufacturers and gun show dealers from easily sidestepping the law. But this travesty doesn’t need to go on indefinitely! And hopefully it will not always block our attempts to effect real change!

      • Of course it can be accepted as a possibility, but it needs to be backed up with evidence before it can be accepted as true. Calling something “accepted wisdom” when there is no evidence to even demonstrate it is real is just another way of saying you want to believe it’s true; that is, it is an article of faith based on your ideology. There was a time when “accepted wisdom” stated the sun went around the earth, but evidence demonstrated that wasn’t true.

        You are free to believe whatever you want, but you are not free to assert it as truth, or even a reasonable possibility, without providing supporting evidence.

        But since you’ve admitted that your assertion cannot be proven, I hope you will forgive me if I remain skeptical of its “wisdom”.

      • As a friend of mine stated yesterday – a Democrat, I should add – common sense is dead.

      • “As a friend of mine stated yesterday – a Democrat, I should add – common sense is dead.”

        Sorry, but common sense (whatever that’s suppose to mean) is often wrong (such as when it told people the sun goes around the earth, or bad air causes a disease, or big objects fall faster than small objects), and it is no substitute for actual evidence.

      • There’s a lot more evidence that the strong pray upon the weak than the other way around. Its both evidence and common sense.

      • “There’s a lot more evidence that the strong pray upon the weak than the other way around. Its both evidence and common sense.”

        Platitudes and slogans do not substitute for evidence, either.

        ” In my view, I am the one advocating for safety, since in the long-run, I believe we are safer with individuals being able to own substantial firepower, even though there will inevitably be tragedies such as Sandy Hook in the short-run.”

        You’re not advocating safety, but paranoia and fear.

        Show us some evidence — ANY evidence — that we should fear the US government turning despotic, or that heavily armed citizens prevent that from happening. Otherwise you’re just making bald assertions based on your faith in your ideology, and I for one remain highly skeptical you even know what you’re talking about.

        By the way, I find it interesting that you’re willing to sacrifice other people’s children just so you can own a machine gun. That’s very brave of you.

      • any evidence? Japanese internment? legal slavery? drones killing civilians? CIA assassinations? J. Edgar Hoover? the fact that we have more people incarcerated per capita than any nation on earth, a huge proportion of which of are victimless offenders? the fact that we are one of the only countries in the world that has adults going to jail on a regular basis for consensual sex, and are in the midst of a McCarthy-like “human trafficking” scare? There’s all sorts of evidence,and now in the wake of Citizens United power is becoming concentrated in this country as much or more than it ever has before. Wake the F up!

        Anyway, adult males such as myself are far more likely to die from guns than children, which you see on the CDC website, and I’m confident my lifestyle places me far above average likelihood of ending up on the wrong end of a gun.

        Another piece of evidence I would point to is that the Nazis killed more children in an average day from 1935-1945 than die from handguns in the most recent entire year CDC stats are available.

        So, based on the undisputed evidence, I’m willing to risk my own hide to save other people’s children.

      • Where your analogy fails, in in the fact that sometimes those with more power really do dominate others but, that is not proof that ANY more powerful group will always unavoidably bring harm to weaker ones.

        Our American system really does make the idea of a government or military take over rather moot, and the fact that we wrongly interred Japanese Americans during WW2 has not prevented us from now understanding that this was wrong. Also, the concern that certain weapons may not be available to the public, is not the same kind of fear, as the one that caused us to groundlessly imprison our Japanese citizens–it is an example of groundless fear, in itself!

        Also, platitudes like, “The strong will Prey on the weak,” conveys different meanings to different people i.e.Was the Confederacy victimized by a stronger Union army, or was it the other way around? Does the fact that the US was the only country possessing nuclear technology for several years, negate that saying, because we did NOT use it to enslave any number of weaker Nations–even though we definitely could have? Is it a given every cop will beat someone who is disorderly during a routine stop, just because that cop has a gun and is twice as strong physically? No, because our laws are intended to prevent such things—they do sometimes happen, but they are not destined to happen as your platitude might suggests.

        Because the Jews were the objects of Genocide in WW2, does not imply that a stronger US government, will do the same to gun owners, just because they have weapons.Our system, although far from perfect is much more fair than most governments in the word.and we are Very different from Nazi Germany.

        Indulging in survivalist fantasies because you somehow identify with the Jews who lived in an outright dictatorship, instead of an ethical representative government like our own, Is not only untrue but also downright silly. If we really lived under an actual dictatorship then your pro-gun remarks might cause the Obama administration to toss you into prison. Thankfully that really is NOT what Obama stands for, and NOT what a strong and just Democracy stands for either!

      • Peter, you dropped about half a dozen strawmen into that comment. I have a headache, and even if I didn’t, I don’t have time to burn them all. You have a greater faith in our system (or maybe just our people), absent the check and balance of a right to bear meaningful firepower, than I do. I hope history proves that you are right, and that I am wrong, in that regard.

      • ABS,

        Why am i accused of offering straw-men by simply pointing out the logical error in using a platitude like “the strong prey on the weak,” as affirming the likelihood that our own government wants to charge up your front porch and confiscate all of your guns.

        The examples I used directly negate the platitude “the strong shall prey on the weak,”–that is if you intended this phrase as immutably true. i.e.was it the north who exerted a greater attack force on the confederate Army, or was the confederate army really stronger for posing such an effective attack of the North? Does the fact that the US had sole possession and control of nuclear weapons for several years, but did not attack other Nations after the war, support the notion that stronger groups always prey on weaker ones? If a stronger cop, in possession of a gun, will that cop always beat someone during an arrest, just because he can? etc…etc…etc.

        A stronger force definitely CAN dominate a weaker force but there are plenty of cases where this absolutely DOES NOT HAPPEN! So anything that is not necessarily true, makes for bad evidence in support of your opinions. Additionally using examples that are no where near applicable in our Democracy, also does not prove that the Obama Administration or any other, wants or ever wants to completely control the government. Besides, I have already brought up many different ways that such a scenario is just impractical and silly in America!

        It’s also possible that Luxembourg will invade and take control of our government, It’s possible that aliens will take over the New York Stock exchange, its possible that Obama might force us to drink lattes once he takes away all our guns etc. etc.etc. So, is
        your total argument based on what you BELIEVE will happen, or can you comment based on the fact that, it is very very unlikely that, the Government could never accomplish such improbable things? The fact is, that none of your scenarios, credibly proves that the US government will invariably take away the guns of a weaker group of composed o gun enthusiasts like the NRA. Sorry to disagree, but in these exchanges I often feel that I might as well be arguing about the existence of Sana Claus or the tooth fair—How clear can I be? the fact that some superior forces have attacked weaker ones–is absolutely no evidence that our current US government, or a rogue military action, might take total control of that government!

        If any of these absurd speculations ever happens, I will be the first to call for Obama’s impeachment, That is if Congress has not already taken care of that?

        It’s not that I have absolute faith in everything the government does, but rather that I truly see the absurdity of conspiracy theories intended to justify owning semi-automatic weapons with 100 round magazines, or any size that is capable of being quickly changed and reloading to access massive amounts of ammunition!. I don’t have time to play games with reality, I only want to change the intolerable situation that ineffective regulations have presented. Virtually every unwitting victim understands the desperate need to enforce and provide effective gun laws. I don’t HOPE you are wrong, I just hope you will admit to being wrong! Good Night.

      • There you go again. You write, “The examples I used directly negate the platitude “the strong shall prey on the weak,”–”

        I didn’t say “shall” Rather than respond to my comments, your comments are riddled with inaccurate rewritings of my comments.

        To anyone reading this, please read my actual comments, not Peter’s inaccurate rewrites of them.

      • ABS,

        I was wondering how long it would take you to negate criticism by making note of exact quotes, wrong words, and by using semantics to back up your attempts to deny justifiable criticism.

        Here is a post of exactly what you said to Biochemborg, who criticized the same sentiment you expressed to me. Your words are the same, just taken out of his comments rater than mine.

        “There’s a lot more evidence that the strong pray upon the weak than the other way around. Its both evidence and common sense.”

        Biochemborg replies: “Platitudes and slogans do not substitute for evidence, either.”

        yes I didn’t quote you exactly, but your idea that it is common sense to believe the fact that, “the strong pray upon the weak” rather than the other way around, represents a solid argument, when you also said, “It’s both evidence and common sense.”–is just not a good generalization to make

        While I cannot say specifically, and in certain cases, that the strong have dominated the weak or the other way around for certain, or that there is much more evidence that supports this idea–the fact that I accidentley added the wrong word, “shall,” simply from associating your statement with a more common cliche–which I believe was probably written that way in some part of the Bible, does not negate the point I made that platitudes cannot be used to judge specific situations. This is because, as I believe others have also tried to tell you, the existence of Nazi Germany and its violent persecution of Jews is not even remotely similar to a conflict between a multi-million member organization like the NRA, and some ordinary Americans who only want to create gun regulations that actually work, or expect their government to violently enforce this notion, is in the least, a very untrue and bogus comparison.

        In logical arguments it is not productive to state some of your own opinions as facts, merely because your own experience affirms them, and though such phrases like “common sense” and that, “the strong prey upon the weak,” even if SOMETIMES true, is certainly much more of a subjective judgement than you might care to admit.

        I used examples such as the fact that the US government did NOT use the atomic bomb at a time it could have, in order to subjugate the entire world. This is just one good example that illustrates that the strong do not ALWAYS prey on the week. And although, you did use the words, “a lot more evidence, that the strong pray upon the weak than the other way around,” you used them to bolster your feeling that the US government is intent on attacking its own citizens over an issue like gun control.

        Your own words, “a lot more often,” logically imply an admission that this may not be true in the United States. In fact, in America, there are 310 million guns owned by civilians, and just 4 million owned by the gun industry and law enforcement combined. This in itself cannot be compared in any realistic way, with the fears that might have motivated Jews to resist a viscous and virtually all-powerful military presence by the Nazis. True, military forces also control heavy artillery, superior air power, and a host of other lethal weapons, as well as commanding a well-trained force. But listen ABS, those who own guns in the US control more guns than are controlled by the military and law enforcement by a ration of 79 to one. Does this in anyway give you a real reason to fear confiscation and control, as if the situation in modern America and pre-WW2 were in any way at all similar to that of the Jews oppressed in Germany.?

        Hitler would probably not permit you and I to have this conversation in the first place, and might have dealt with either of us with swift, harsh brutality– just for having ANY individual opinions at all.

        The arguments that I and others have presented in order to shoot down the myth that the word HITLER, is NOT synonymous with gun control, and that he did not institute gun controls that were in any way more harsh than those that already existed several years before he came to power, are meant to discredit your rather paranoid claims that dangerous gun legislation proposed by the Obama Administration (or any other Administration that tried the same) are a precursor to violent subjugation of citizens and confiscation of all privately held weapon. There are a number of reputable websites that lay to rest the ideas that the famous quote attributed to Hitler as, “For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future!”–never was really said by Hitler.

        You might like to check The Fordham Law review site which contains an article called: Response to Bernard E. Harcourt’s on Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws–Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historian).

        It directly states that this famous quote attributed to Hitler, is “Historically Bogus.”

        The reason your insistence that this, along with other non-existent claims are true, is because on the surface, the average person might find it very credible to believe that,Hitler was a gun control fanatic, who would not hesitate to remove weapons in order to dominate his enemies. And people like you might exploit these falsehoods to convince others, that the United States Government is certainly planning the same kind of thing. But is this true? The actual history says, NO NO NO!

        If we are going to play a semantic game based on who made the most small errors regarding any statements, I could easily do the same to you. Here is a post of a comment you made which also contains a conceptual error. I had to go a ways back to find it but It is dated March 14th, 2013 at 2:40 PM,–when you said!

        “I’m not asserting that there has been an actual benefit, just that it should be considered as a possibility. Obviously, there’s no real way to prove it, just like all sorts of things that can be proven but that are accepted wisdom. Yes, it sounds reasonable, because its plainly obvious that rational individuals assess the relative strength of their adversaries before engaging them in conflict.”

        The words i specifically noticed are, “just like all sorts of things that CAN be proven but that ARE ACCEPTABLE WISDOM.”

        If I am not mistaken, you meant to use the words, “CAN’T be proven.” At least if you didn’t your version would then make no sense within the context of the rest of your statement?

        I noticed this mistake as soon as you wrote it, but I did not call you on it or make a fuss about its true meaning–Why?–because I knew very well what you meant. Similarly, I think you understood perfectly that I was using the word “shall” mistakenly but still conveyed the essence of my statement—being that any platitudes used as proof are just not necessarily true, and do not make for good evidence in debates.

        As Biochemborg stated, there was a time when middle age people thought it made complete sense that the sun revolved around the Earth and that directs observations pointed to the reasonableness of this belief–even to the point of torturing Astronomers who tried to use proven math and Science to reveal just the opposite. Similarly, using the fact that the strong may often dominate the weak (not a direct quote but the same meaning) does not at all imply that this is happening over the issue of gun control in contemporary America. How much more plain can I make it, that your reasoning is often flawed when you attempt to apply cliches and platitudes as support for your arguments?!!

        The essence of the issue involves personal freedoms to use weapons for self-defense vs. the reasonable possibility that certain of these weapons might present dangers to the public–as well as what kind of effective measures should be used to change this situation.

        What we say is not important so much because of whether we dot all of our I’s or cross all our T’s, but rather, by how we identify the basic conflict and how we argue for our own understandings about the best way to change this tragic situation.

        We all make grammatical gaffes and spelling errors, and we will make them again. In fact, I was so tired when leaving my last post yesterday, that I noticed many silly mistakes after it was submitted. So, if you really want to have a discussion based on respect and civility, lets not play the game of who can mince words or notice insignificant errors more effectively–lets base our discussion on real facts and what is really required to rationally examine the issue of gun control!

      • “any evidence? Japanese internment? legal slavery? drones killing civilians? CIA assassinations? J. Edgar Hoover? the fact that we have more people incarcerated per capita than any nation on earth, a huge proportion of which of are victimless offenders? the fact that we are one of the only countries in the world that has adults going to jail on a regular basis for consensual sex, and are in the midst of a McCarthy-like “human trafficking” scare? There’s all sorts of evidence,and now in the wake of Citizens United power is becoming concentrated in this country as much or more than it ever has before. Wake the F up!”

        Please. Now you’re just being hysterical. And none of this counts as evidence that the government could turn tyrannical. All you did was cherry pick unconnected examples and present them out of context; that’s not evidence, it’s propaganda. And all it does is justify your paranoia, not prove it true.

        “Anyway, adult males such as myself are far more likely to die from guns than children….”

        Only if we were talking about gun violence in general, but we’re not. You mentioned Sandy Hook; ergo, we’re talking about killing sprees, and kids are more likely to die in those than adults.

        “Another piece of evidence I would point to is that the Nazis killed more children in an average day from 1935-1945 than die from handguns in the most recent entire year CDC stats are available.”

        Which is a red herring; that has nothing to do with the current US government.

        “So, based on the undisputed evidence, I’m willing to risk my own hide to save other people’s children.”

        No, you’re willing to see other people’s children killed just to satisfy your own selfish obsession for military weapons. You do not face any threat children do, and the threats you do face, if they really exist, are entirely of your own making, as you admitted. They have nothing to do with the government turning despotic.

      • Biochemborg,

        Speaking of evidence, I’ve actually only fired a gun one day in my life, at a gun range, at the behest of a friend. So, I have no obsession with military weapons.

        You are too untethered from any good-faith interest in a discussion. You want to win your argument by appealing to morons, since only a moron would agree with your “reasoning.”

        I’ll continue my conversation with people who are interested in a good-faith discussion of issues. You have proven yourself – with ample evidence – to not be worth my time.

      • “…I have no obsession with military weapons.”

        So you say. I’ve learned to take such statements from gun-rights advocates with a large grain of salt. Your own arguments suggest otherwise.

        “You are too untethered from any good-faith interest in a discussion. You want to win your argument by appealing to morons, since only a moron would agree with your ‘reasoning’.”

        All I ever did was try to get you to support your assertions with evidence. That’s all “good faith” means. Anything else becomes a childish “is so! is not!” style argument. I will take this as an admission that you never had any evidence to offer or any intention to do so.

        By the way, insulting an opponent you cannot refute is sure proof that your position is intellectually bankrupt.

      • “No, its often evidence, not ‘sure proof’.”

        Sorry, that’s wrong. Insults as the parting shot are standard procedure for people like you, people who have no evidence to support their assertions and get called on the carpet for it. It’s their way of pulling out while saving face. If they had evidence, they wouldn’t need insults because they would just give the evidence.

      • No evidence – so for you, the CDC website and statistics regarding children killed by the Nazis are not evidence, but when someone gets tired of you refusing to acknowledge raw statistics as evidence – merely evidence, by the way, not proof – their getting tired of your refusal is PROOF that they are wrong.

        Actually, when someone rejects all evidence, it is highly indicative they know they are wrong. You reject all evidence and all knowledge, because the evidence is against you.

      • ABS,

        Let me see if I understand this correctly–Because the Nazis killed many children, this is proof positive that the government is going to force you to give up your weapons and serve the dreaded Lord Obama?

      • I’ll go slow so you can follow along:

        “so for you, the CDC website and statistics regarding children killed by the Nazis are not evidence”

        They were not evidence supporting your assertions, only propaganda meant to justify your preconceived beliefs. You presented them without proper context, you made no attempt to explain how they supported your assertion, and you offered them as a kind of bait and switch to try to steer the discussion into a debate on the efficacy of your “evidence” instead of your lack of evidence altogether.

        “but when someone gets tired of you refusing to acknowledge raw statistics as evidence”

        What you got tired of was my holding your feet to the fire to try to get you to reveal REAL evidence, not bald assertions and propaganda.

        And “raw statistics” are not evidence of anything until put into a proper context. The “CDC website” would be evidence for general gun violence, not mass shootings which is what we were talking about. The “Nazi killing children” is evidence of the actions of a past totalitarian regime; how it can be evidence of anything we’re talking about I cannot fathom.

        “their getting tired of your refusal is PROOF that they are wrong.”

        As I said, it’s a standard rhetorical tactic; ask any professional debater. People who have evidence don’t need to hurl insults; people who hurl insults to cover their retreat from a discussion had no evidence to begin with.

        Let’s try this:

        Give one piece of evidence; it can be anything, even something you’ve already mentioned that I rejected.

        Only you must:

        1. explain how that evidence is relevant

        2. put it into context

        3. and explain how it supports your position.

  8. Mr. Johnson:

    The idea that gun control has no affect on criminals having guns but makes it child’s play for a government to slaughter it’s own citizens is based on the old “criminals don’t obey laws” canard.

    I sometimes think gun-rights advocates believe there are underworld Wal-marts where criminals can go to get whatever they want, being supplied by underworld manufacturing plants. That’s the only way their “when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns” slogan makes any sense. They don’t seem to understand, or want to understand, that criminals get guns from the same source as law-abiding citizens.

    So if Obama or some future president actually did try to ban guns, criminals would be in the same boat as law-abiding citizens.

    • Biochemborg,

      Absolutely true, and I suppose you are writing again in support of my previous statement since I said basically the same thing.

      I seldom find blogs written with such directness and commonsense reasoning as is the POP. I am also happy to share my ideas with many other posters!

  9. you should not be the one to judge others of arguing in bad faith after using a phrase like “Shut the F up.” You shouldn’t throw stones in a glass house!

    Also, you have the advantage of anonymity, so how are we to know if anything you say is true. You may or may not have fired a gun only once in your life, but your comments definitely prove your belief in owning any of them you might please–regardless of any dangers to the public.

    I could also tell you that i have only fired a rifle once, at the home I grew up in and only when 9 or 10 years old. At that time, I didn’t care much for the recoil, and I have never even hunted, even though my father was an avid sportsman. Despite these facts, I do support the right of private citizens to own reasonable weapons for self protection, But not any kind at all! for Christ’s sake man! You and I don’t need machine guns and we don’t need 100 round magazines on our semi-automatics! These are not necessary for self-protection and they endanger the lives of citizens! Especially since many of semi-automatics have become popular with mass shooters who often prefer the same types of military “style” weapons–as the ones being questioned about being safe today!

    I have heard Biochemborg, use some terse language with you, but I have read him deliver a cut like calling you a “moron” after merely differing with him emphatically. If you react to intellectual opposition by using curse words, or by calling others morons, simply because they do not respect your opinions–way too often presented as facts–than get out of the kitchen or get off of this forum.

    Becoming belligerent, can happen to anyone, but judging from your caustic put-downs, I am very glad you do not own or use guns of your own! But how can I be sure you are not commenting from a cubical in Nigeria just to solicit money which is then funneled to the NRA?

    Whatever is the case, I believe it was you who insulted Biochemborg, not the other way around!!

  10. Abs,

    Before you decide to pounce, here is a paste of another mistake in my long post of a little while ago:

    States. “In fact, in America, there are 310 million guns owned by civilians, and just 4 million owned by the gun industry and law enforcement combined.”

    Of course I know that the gun industry sells guns rather than primarily representing a large group of owners. I hope you have the capability of realizing I really wanted to refer to the “military” as owning 4 million guns when included with law enforcement?

  11. ABS,

    Remember how the point of these comments had to do with whether anyone who approves of gun regulations is walking in the footsteps of Hitler, or not?

    The POP has pointed out that the famous quote that is attributed to Adolf and is used to compare his tactics with those of the United States Government, was never really said by Hitler. In what might be a refreshing change from our tendency for splitting hairs and getting hung up on dozens of peripheral issues, I have decided to base this post only on the proof that this Statement was never actually said by Hitler. So here is a paste from a website article called “The Hitler Gun Control lie:

    “This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”

    “The quote has been widely reproduced in blog posts and opinion columns about gun control, but it’s “probably a fraud and was likely never uttered,” according to Harcourt. “This quotation, often seen without any date or citation at all, suffers from several credibility problems, the most significant of which is that the date often given [1935] has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration, nor would there have been any need for the Nazis to pass such a law, since gun registration laws passed by the Weimar government were already in effect,” researchers at the useful website GunCite note.”

    If you go to the URL: _hitler/

    and then enter “The Hitler Gun Control Lie” into the search, you can read the entire article yourself.

    Anyone can find plenty of articles which mention this popular misconception, including the article in the Fordham Law Review, which I recommended earlier.

    Although I think you will probably not accept these statements, or may develop some spins to discredit them, just know that I am not one to let illusory conspiracy scenarios dictate all further debate we might have on this subject. In closing let me post another statement I made in a previous post:

    “I often feel that I might as well be arguing about the existence of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy—How clear can I be? The fact that some superior forces have attacked weaker ones–is absolutely no evidence that our current US government, or a rogue military action, might take total control of that government!”

    The above quote is a direct copy, except for some minor spelling and grammatical corrections that were erroneously included in the original comment.

    That’s the essence of what I have been trying to say. The real issues involved in regulating weapons are concerned with a matter of how much personal freedom the 2nd Amendment grant gun owners, vs. how far our rights stretch when they may be considered to represent a danger to public safety?

    So let’s give up on all of these intellectual side trips which are quite irrelevant to the problem, and instead debate the real central issues involved. Anything less is like wasting one’s time by arguing over the existence, or non-existence, of Santa Claus!

  12. You ask: “Could these possibly be the same gunsters who proclaim, loudly and at every opportunity, that “gun control doesn’t work”? And yet in the next breath they declare that beyond a shadow of a doubt, “gun control” is the one thing that made the Holocaust possible? Which is it, folks? Does “gun control” work or doesn’t it? Are you saying that it only works on Jews?”

    I’m afraid the real answer is very close to that. To most of these wingnuts, Jews are weak, degenerate people who only get their way through subversion and trickery. They are not like the manly Christians who could have taken those guns and beat the Nazis down.

    There’s a name for this sort of thinking. Most wingnuts would furiously deny that it applies to them, but then, they don’t own up to their feelings toward Blacks or Latinos either.

    • There’s certainly a thread of racism running through the gun culture, as I”ll be discussing more in the future.

  13. POP,

    I also wouldn’t be surprised if there were racist elements running through the gun culture. The fact that many “skin-heads,” Nazis, and survivalist groups Often feel compelled to defend against an imaginary invasion by the government, suggest to me, that it is conservatives who are actually ideologically closer to these groups than those who desire gun regulations.

    One of the articles my personal research led me to, contains excerpts from William L. Pierce’s book GUN CONTROL IN GERMANY, 1928-1945. Among many other topics, such as what gave a historical rise to anti-antisemitism in Germany, Pierce comments on traits which were common among members of the National socialist party. And which I personally, consider a lot closer to right-wing political dogma. Pierce says: “The spirit of Nationalism was one of manliness and individual self-defense.” He also notes that, themes of self-reliance, “Were central to the National socialist view of the way a citizen should behave.” Gun control was also seen as “utterly alien,” to National Socialism, and National Socialists urged young Germans to be proficient in shooting and the martial arts. These were considered manly pursuits, and, in my opinion, closely parallel the self-reliant individualism of those who adamantly insist on not being hindered by “limits” placed on the 2nd Amendment.

    Hitlers comrades also succeeded in virtually wiping out communism in Germany. Part of the antipathy between the two groups had to do with the fact that Communists had made several attempts to assassinate him—thereby demonstrating the hate they shared for Hitler–very similar to the hate expressed by many right-wing, read-neck, ruggedly individualistic groups and underground militias in America, for President Obama.

    And as you said, it is completely true that, Gun policies in Germany under Hitler were actually loosened for German citizens. Furthermore, the German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 prohibited Jews from manufacturing and dealing in firearms or munitions, but did NOT exclude them from owning and Bearing firearms. The aforementioned book’s author felt that excluding Jews from business in this way “rankled them as much as any other exclusion.” However, he also believes that, as is typical in any ethnocentric reaction, their anger may have caused them to misinterpret this action by Nazis and,” in order to categorize the offense, they may have misinterpreted it as a gun control law rather than a restrictions in business.

    In short, POP there is a lot of good evidence to support the statements in your blog. I would also like to add a list of questions for Gun Advocates that might clarify some of the things they believe about gun control, and invites them to respond:

    1. How do you define the word, “ARMS” used in the language of the 2nd Amendment?

    2.Do you believe that if it were ABSOLUTELY determined that gun ownership had exactly NO effect on crime rates, Liberals and ‘gun grabbers” would still want them banned?

    3. Can you name one American President that has ever used his power of office to willfully and illegally take away all weapons from every American citizens?

    4. How does the fact that German Nazis were absolutely viscous and ruthless–especially toward Jews– imply That our countries, balance of power, political structure and its defense of personal freedoms, indicates a similar threat by our Government to forcefully confiscation and prohibit guns in modern day America?

    5.Can you supply reliable information to support the contention that Hitler actually DID make his famous speech about gun control in 1935?

    6. Do you dispute that, for most Germans, HItler actually did loosen restrictions on guns, during his time in power?

    7. If liberals and/or journalists are vilified for creating the misnomer “ASSAULT WEAPONS,” in order to cause confusion about the actual dangers involved in the ownership and use of SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons, which can only fire one round with each pull of the trigger, vs, the continuous fire as long as the trigger is held–from more dangerous FULLY AUTOMATIC, firearms, then why do you downplay the role of the gun industry in manufacturing weapons which are very similar in design to their more dangerous fully automatic counterparts? Obviously gun grabbers and journalists etc. have no control over the design and cosmetic features of various virtually identical semi-automatics. So, wouldn’t this imply that the gun industry itself, decided to make these changes in order to increase their “tough guy” appeal to potential buyers? Otherwise, why was it done, and why are Industry moguls not, right now, changing those design features and cosmetic appearances? Do they want consumers to continue being confused?

    8. Why was the original “Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 enacted only for a limited period of ten years, and, why was its passage contingent on the Government’s agreement not to authorize any further studies about gun control. And, were its weak calls for background checks ever changed to overcome problems about running real and effective background checks?

    9. Do you agree that even if the background checks that were implemented in 1994 had successfully prevented millions of dangerous gun sales–since there is no way to accurately measure quantitatively how may lives MIGHT have been saved because of running those checks?–Is if possible that it was more effective than we can know?

    10. Even though you may believe that guns don’t Kill people, and only bad people with guns kill people, and does this belief absolutely exclude the possibility that sometimes easily available weapons that are physically accessible to people who shouldn’t have them, make the crimes they commit all the more easy to do?

    I look forward to any honest and thought provoking answers.

    Sorry for hogging so much space with this comment.

  14. As a democracy believer, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy were bad and we’re better off without them. Of course as it is, we have been dealing with Russia since it was the former USSR for many years and we are also dealing with Asia’s superpower China.

    Germans, Italians and Japanese have all done nice things for science and culture. Most Germans, Italians and Japanese are Okay and those born after the war are innocent of the deeds of Nazis, Fascists and Imperial Japs. Germany, Italy and Japan are democracies because Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo were defeated. The 3 ethnic groups have done nice things for science as German and Japanese cars are good with Volkswagens & Hondas, Kabuki Theater and Italians are also good when it comes to science. WW2 is a bad time in these 3 nations histories.

    Germany and Japan both were becoming militarily powerful from the late 1800s (1870s) with the Franco-German war, dreadnoughts and Meiji Restoration in Japan. Japan won territory from China in the 1894 Sino-Japanese war, among others. Korea became a Japanese colony in 1910. During WW1, Germany was opposed by Italy and Japan (though Japan had minor role) and Germany lost territory to both Japan & Italy after the First World War. Germany, Italy and Japan were allies during WW2 with the Tripartite Agreement of Sept. 1940. Of course, Germany and Japan were untrustworthy allies while the alliance of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy was 1 of friendship as Mussolini and Hitler were friends. Rest is copy&paste but to be said again.

    1945 atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. President Harry S. Truman should have dropped the atom bombs elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths, but there is no guarantee that this would have ended the war. President Truman had bad options. He could have done what he did and it ended the war. If it had gone to a ground war with Japan, more people both Allied and Japanese would have been killed. Japanese would have used women and children in combat with house to house fighting and they were already doing so. Japanese had Bushido (Samurai way) and fighting to death was preferred to suicide.

    Yes, the newborns killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are innocent war victims. War is a bad thing. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong, but there were only wrong choices for President Truman to choose from. War is bad and an invasion of Japan would have been worse. If Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy and Germany had the atom bombs, they would have used them as the Japanese airforce had used parachuted fleabombs against China were many were killed in biological warfare. Japan had a program to build the atom bombs. During WW2-Germany, Japan and Italy believed they were the best and if the 3 nations had the atomic bombs, they would have used them and we would possibly still be dealing with Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany today.

    During WW2, both the Allies and Axis bombed cities with hope the other side surrenders and innocents (especially kids) were killed in London, Coventry, Dresden, Pforzeim, Nanking, Shanghai, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. No, the bombing of German (to a smaller extent Italian cities) and Japanese cities (including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) is not comparable to Holocaust as the intent with the bombing of citiies is get the enemies to surrender while the Holocaust’s intent is genocide. The bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, etc. did result in innocents esp.the kids killed in the raids even if the dad was guilty of committing the Bataan Massacre or if the parents were guilty of Holocaust.

    When Holocaust happened from 1941 to 1945, it was ordinary Germans who took part in this. Though I didn’t read Hitler’s willing executioners, I have seen interviews which Professor DJ Goldhagen has given and Professor DJ Goldhagen is right about ordinary Germans committing the Holocaust. Though most Germans who supported Adolf Hitler in 1933 could not have foreseen the Holocaust. Nazi Germany’s original policy was for Jews to leave Europe to emigrate to Palestine and during 1930s, Adolf Eichmann met with Jewish leaders in then Palestine to do this before it turned to extermination or genocide from summer 1941 on.

    If Hitler had died in 1938 (before the Holocaust) instead of 1945 (after millions were killed), he would have gone down as a great leader in German history. Germany and later Austria after 1938 anschluss were advanced in many ways during Hitler’s time be it automotive science (V.W. Beetle came out in 1938), veterinary science and other things. But Hitler was a dictator whose interest was lebensraum & from 1941 to 1945, the extermination of Jewry (Holocaust began in 1941 as Nazi Germany’s policy changed during Operation Barbarossa from immigration to extermination with Jan. 1942 Wannsee Conference officializing this). Mussolini, Tojo and Hitler had many supporters in all 3 nations.

    It must be repeated that in some cases the Nazis did kill bad people-Hitler’s henchmen killing Stalin’s henchmen is what the Commissar Order was. Stalin’s Red Army officers and partisans and those who were executed by the Commissar Order were Communists who had taken part in Stalin’s Holodomor. In some cases, Stalin’s henchmen were killed in Nazi concentration camps. So yes, in some cases the Nazis did kill bad people-Hitler’s henchmen killing Stalin’s henchmen is what the Commissar Order was.

    The Nazis did many bad things especially with the Holocaust. Wow! is right about this. Bad people sometimes kill bad people. Fascist Italian, Imperial Japanese and Nazi German soldiers in some cases did kill bad people as the latter 2 had killed Stalin’s Communists (Japan fought against Russia in 1939 and again in August 8, 1945 after the atom bomb was dropped before Japan surrendered on August 12, 1945 3 days after Nagasaki’s atom bombing on August 9, 1945).

    Why did the Holocaust happen and what is the motive behind those who would kill men, women and children that they usually didn’t know other than they were Jewish? We know that before the Holocaust or what is known as Shoah, Nazi Germany’s policy was emigration before it unofficially changed to extermination during Operation Barbarossa in 1941 and became official extermination after Jan. 1942 Lake Wannsee Conference. Nazi Germany originally wanted Jews to leave Europe and emigrate to then Palestine and during the 1930s, Adolf (Karl) Eichmann met with Jewish leaders in then Palestine to work out Jewish emigration-but it was Jerusalem Mufti Amin Al Husseini who asked that this be ended. There had been discussion of creating a Jewish land in Africa with Madagascar. But in 1941, this policy unofficialy changed to exterminating Jews and in Jan. 1942, this was officialized with euphemisms and codes.

    Why did this change to extermination? The excuses Nazis made is that it was the Jews who committed the Soviet Holocaust (Holodomor) and that because so many were killed by Bolsehviks, that it gave them an excuse to exterminate Jews because some were Bolsheviks. I’ve asked this before-if the Holodomor had not happened would the Nazis have committed the Holocaust? Would Nazi Germany’s policy regarding the Jews remained 1 of discrimination and emigration rather than exterminating Jewry had the Holodomor not happened? We know the excuses Nazis made by saying that because Jewish Bolsheviks committed Stalin’s Soviet Holocaust that it justified Nazi Germany’s Holocaust against Jews but only they knew why they committed the Holocaust & we will never know. There are some things about the Holocaust we don’t know the answers and we don’t know why they did what they did but can only know the excuses they make as to why they did it and either believe or not believe them.

    It has been said that the Holocaust has become a 2nd religion for some Jews. Holodomor took many more lives. And some of Stalin’s henchmen such as Lazar Kaganovitch, Genrikh Yagoda, Yev Mekhlis and others were Jewish, yet you get called anti-Semite if you mention this truth. Don’t think famous and talented Director Steven Allan Spielberg would do a movie on Jewish complicity in the Soviet Holodomor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s