Hitler joins gun debate, but history is in dispute

When the president of Ohio's state school board posted her opposition to gun control, she used a powerful symbol to make her point: a picture of Adolf Hitler. When a well-known conservative commentator decried efforts to restrict guns, he argued that if only Jews in Poland had been better armed, many more would have survived the Holocaust.
In the months since the Newtown, Conn., school massacre, some gun rights supporters have repeatedly compared U.S. gun control efforts to Nazi restrictions on firearms, arguing that limiting weapons ownership could leave Americans defenseless against homegrown tyrants.
But some experts say that argument distorts a complex and contrary history. In reality, scholars say, Hitler loosened the tight gun laws that governed Germany after World War I, even as he barred Jews from owning weapons and moved to confiscate them.
Advocates who cite Hitler in the current U.S. debate overlook that Jews in 1930s Germany were a very small population, owned few guns before the Nazis took control, and lived under a dictatorship commanding overwhelming public support and military might, historians say. While it doesn't fit neatly into the modern-day gun debate, they say, the truth is that for all Hitler's unquestionably evil acts, his firearms laws likely made no difference in Jews' very tenuous odds of survival.
"Objectively, it might have made things worse" if the Jews who fought the Nazis in the 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising in Poland had more and better guns, said historian Steve Paulsson, an expert on the period whose Jewish family survived the city's destruction.
But comparisons between a push by gun control advocates in the U.S. and Hitler have become so common - in online comments and letters to newspaper editors, at gun rights protests and in public forums - they're often asserted as fact, rather than argument.
"Absolute certainties are a rare thing in this life, but one I think can be collectively agreed upon is the undeniable fact that the Holocaust would have never taken place had the Jewish citizenry of Hitler's Germany had the right to bear arms and defended themselves with those arms," former Major League Baseball pitcher John Rocker wrote in an online column in January.
After some gun advocates rallied at New York's capitol in February carrying signs depicting Gov. Andrew Cuomo as Hitler, National Rifle Association President David Keene said the analogy was appropriate.
"Folks that are cognizant of the history, not just in Germany but elsewhere, look back to that history and say we can't let that sort of thing happen here," Keene, who was the lead speaker at the rally, told a radio interviewer March 1.
Those comparisons between gun control now and under Hitler joined numerous other statements, including the one by the Ohio school board president, Debe Terhar, on her personal Facebook page in January and by conservative commentator Andrew Napolitano, writing in The Washington Times.
The comparisons recently prompted the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group, to call on critics of gun control to keep Hitler and the Nazis out of the debate.
The rhetoric "is such an absurdity and so offensive and just undermines any real understanding of what the Holocaust was about," said Ken Jacobson, the ADL's deputy national director. "If they do believe it, they're making no serious examination of what the Nazi regime was about."
But some gun rights advocates firmly disagree.
"People who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it," said Charles Heller, executive director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, which has long compared U.S. gun control to Nazi tactics. "I guess if you're pro-Nazi, they are right. But if you're pro-freedom, we call those people liars."
Comparing gun control activism to Hitler is not new. In a 1994 book, "Guns, Crime and Freedom," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre wrote that "In Germany, firearm registration helped lead to the Holocaust."
But the history of civilian gun ownership under the Nazis, scholars say, is far more complicated than the rhetoric indicates.
After World War I, Germany signed a peace treaty requiring dismantling of much of its army and limiting weapons import and export. But many of the 1 million soldiers returning home joined armed militias, including a Nazi Party force that saw Communists as the leading threat.
"Technically, they (the militias) were illegal and the guns were illegal, but a lot of government officials didn't care about right-wingers with guns taking on Communists," said David Redles, co-author of "Hitler and Nazi Germany: A History," a popular college text. By 1928, however, officials decided they had to get a handle on the militias and their weapons and passed a law requiring registration of all guns, said Redles, who teaches at Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland.
Soon after Hitler was named chancellor in 1933, he used the arson of the Reichstag as an excuse to push through a decree allowing for the arrest of many Communists and the suspension of civil rights including protections from search and seizure. But as the Nazis increasingly targeted Jews and others they considered enemies, they moved in 1938 to loosen gun statutes for the loyal majority, said Bernard Harcourt, a University of Chicago professor of law and political science who has studied gun regulations under Hitler.
The 1938 law is best known for barring Jews from owning weapons, after which the Nazis confiscated guns from Jewish homes. But Harcourt points out that Hitler's gun law otherwise completely deregulated acquisition of rifles, long guns and ammunition. It exempted many groups from requiring permits. The law lowered the age for legal gun ownership from 20 to 18. And it extended the validity of gun permits from one year to three years.
"To suggest that the targeting of Jews in any of the gun regulations or any of the other regulations is somehow tied to Nazis' view of guns is entirely misleading," Harcourt said, "because the Nazis believed in a greater deregulation of firearms. Firearms were viewed, for the good German, were something to which they had rights."
With the 1938 law, Nazis seized guns from Jewish homes. But few Jews owned guns and they composed just 2 percent of the population in a country that strongly backed Hitler. By the time the law passed, Jews were so marginalized and spread among so many cities, there was no possibility of them putting up meaningful resistance, even with guns, said Robert Gellately, a professor of history at Florida State University and author of "Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany."
U.S. gun rights advocates disagree, pointing to the 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising by about 700 armed Jews who were able to fend off a much larger force of German troops for days until retreating to tunnels or fleeing. The Nazis won out by systematically burning the ghetto to the ground, house by house.
"Once the Germans began adopting that strategy there really wasn't very much that people armed with pistols, or even rifles and machine guns, could do," said Paulsson, the historian and author of "Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw."
Paulsson said it is possible that if Polish Jews had limited their resistance, Nazi troops might not have destroyed the ghetto, allowing more to survive in hiding or escape. When armed Jews shot at mobs or troops at other times in 1930s and 1940s Poland, it incited more vicious counter-attacks, he said.
But to Heller, the gun rights activist, the Warsaw uprising is proof of power in firearms. Giving Jews more guns might not have averted the Holocaust, but it would have given them a fighting chance, enough that perhaps a third of them could have shot their way out of being marched to the concentration camps, he said.
"Could they have fought back? They did (in Warsaw). You know why they (the Nazis) destroyed the ghetto? Because they were afraid of getting shot," he said. "Now, will it get to that in the U.S.? God, I hope not. Not if (U.S. Attorney General Eric) Holder doesn't start sending people to kick doors down."
But Paulsson, whose mother was freed from the Auschwitz concentration camp at the end of the war, dismisses that argument as twisting the facts.
"Ideologues always try to shoehorn history into their own categories and read into the past things that serve their own particular purposes," he said.
In the months since the Newtown, Conn., school massacre, some gun rights supporters have repeatedly compared U.S. gun control efforts to Nazi restrictions on firearms, arguing that limiting weapons ownership could leave Americans defenseless against homegrown tyrants.
But some experts say that argument distorts a complex and contrary history. In reality, scholars say, Hitler loosened the tight gun laws that governed Germany after World War I, even as he barred Jews from owning weapons and moved to confiscate them.
Advocates who cite Hitler in the current U.S. debate overlook that Jews in 1930s Germany were a very small population, owned few guns before the Nazis took control, and lived under a dictatorship commanding overwhelming public support and military might, historians say. While it doesn't fit neatly into the modern-day gun debate, they say, the truth is that for all Hitler's unquestionably evil acts, his firearms laws likely made no difference in Jews' very tenuous odds of survival.
"Objectively, it might have made things worse" if the Jews who fought the Nazis in the 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising in Poland had more and better guns, said historian Steve Paulsson, an expert on the period whose Jewish family survived the city's destruction.
But comparisons between a push by gun control advocates in the U.S. and Hitler have become so common - in online comments and letters to newspaper editors, at gun rights protests and in public forums - they're often asserted as fact, rather than argument.
"Absolute certainties are a rare thing in this life, but one I think can be collectively agreed upon is the undeniable fact that the Holocaust would have never taken place had the Jewish citizenry of Hitler's Germany had the right to bear arms and defended themselves with those arms," former Major League Baseball pitcher John Rocker wrote in an online column in January.
After some gun advocates rallied at New York's capitol in February carrying signs depicting Gov. Andrew Cuomo as Hitler, National Rifle Association President David Keene said the analogy was appropriate.
"Folks that are cognizant of the history, not just in Germany but elsewhere, look back to that history and say we can't let that sort of thing happen here," Keene, who was the lead speaker at the rally, told a radio interviewer March 1.
Those comparisons between gun control now and under Hitler joined numerous other statements, including the one by the Ohio school board president, Debe Terhar, on her personal Facebook page in January and by conservative commentator Andrew Napolitano, writing in The Washington Times.
The comparisons recently prompted the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group, to call on critics of gun control to keep Hitler and the Nazis out of the debate.
The rhetoric "is such an absurdity and so offensive and just undermines any real understanding of what the Holocaust was about," said Ken Jacobson, the ADL's deputy national director. "If they do believe it, they're making no serious examination of what the Nazi regime was about."
But some gun rights advocates firmly disagree.
"People who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it," said Charles Heller, executive director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, which has long compared U.S. gun control to Nazi tactics. "I guess if you're pro-Nazi, they are right. But if you're pro-freedom, we call those people liars."
Comparing gun control activism to Hitler is not new. In a 1994 book, "Guns, Crime and Freedom," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre wrote that "In Germany, firearm registration helped lead to the Holocaust."
But the history of civilian gun ownership under the Nazis, scholars say, is far more complicated than the rhetoric indicates.
After World War I, Germany signed a peace treaty requiring dismantling of much of its army and limiting weapons import and export. But many of the 1 million soldiers returning home joined armed militias, including a Nazi Party force that saw Communists as the leading threat.
"Technically, they (the militias) were illegal and the guns were illegal, but a lot of government officials didn't care about right-wingers with guns taking on Communists," said David Redles, co-author of "Hitler and Nazi Germany: A History," a popular college text. By 1928, however, officials decided they had to get a handle on the militias and their weapons and passed a law requiring registration of all guns, said Redles, who teaches at Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland.
Soon after Hitler was named chancellor in 1933, he used the arson of the Reichstag as an excuse to push through a decree allowing for the arrest of many Communists and the suspension of civil rights including protections from search and seizure. But as the Nazis increasingly targeted Jews and others they considered enemies, they moved in 1938 to loosen gun statutes for the loyal majority, said Bernard Harcourt, a University of Chicago professor of law and political science who has studied gun regulations under Hitler.
The 1938 law is best known for barring Jews from owning weapons, after which the Nazis confiscated guns from Jewish homes. But Harcourt points out that Hitler's gun law otherwise completely deregulated acquisition of rifles, long guns and ammunition. It exempted many groups from requiring permits. The law lowered the age for legal gun ownership from 20 to 18. And it extended the validity of gun permits from one year to three years.
"To suggest that the targeting of Jews in any of the gun regulations or any of the other regulations is somehow tied to Nazis' view of guns is entirely misleading," Harcourt said, "because the Nazis believed in a greater deregulation of firearms. Firearms were viewed, for the good German, were something to which they had rights."
With the 1938 law, Nazis seized guns from Jewish homes. But few Jews owned guns and they composed just 2 percent of the population in a country that strongly backed Hitler. By the time the law passed, Jews were so marginalized and spread among so many cities, there was no possibility of them putting up meaningful resistance, even with guns, said Robert Gellately, a professor of history at Florida State University and author of "Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany."
U.S. gun rights advocates disagree, pointing to the 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising by about 700 armed Jews who were able to fend off a much larger force of German troops for days until retreating to tunnels or fleeing. The Nazis won out by systematically burning the ghetto to the ground, house by house.
"Once the Germans began adopting that strategy there really wasn't very much that people armed with pistols, or even rifles and machine guns, could do," said Paulsson, the historian and author of "Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw."
Paulsson said it is possible that if Polish Jews had limited their resistance, Nazi troops might not have destroyed the ghetto, allowing more to survive in hiding or escape. When armed Jews shot at mobs or troops at other times in 1930s and 1940s Poland, it incited more vicious counter-attacks, he said.
But to Heller, the gun rights activist, the Warsaw uprising is proof of power in firearms. Giving Jews more guns might not have averted the Holocaust, but it would have given them a fighting chance, enough that perhaps a third of them could have shot their way out of being marched to the concentration camps, he said.
"Could they have fought back? They did (in Warsaw). You know why they (the Nazis) destroyed the ghetto? Because they were afraid of getting shot," he said. "Now, will it get to that in the U.S.? God, I hope not. Not if (U.S. Attorney General Eric) Holder doesn't start sending people to kick doors down."
But Paulsson, whose mother was freed from the Auschwitz concentration camp at the end of the war, dismisses that argument as twisting the facts.
"Ideologues always try to shoehorn history into their own categories and read into the past things that serve their own particular purposes," he said.
To those individual(s) who are vocally advocating treason by armed citizens in the form of an armed rebellion against the government, I feel a need to offer that of the 2 most organized efforts to do that, in 1791-1794 and 1860-1865, BOTH failed after US troops put the rebellions down.
On the other hand, the best known PEACEFUL rebellion against the misdeeds of the government - both State and Federal - was successful in changing history and society in this country. That was during the 1956-63 period of the Civil Rights fights.Â
Something to think about when considering trying to make major changes in our government.Â
Peaceful changes.
@OrcasThunder Oops.. the most successful one was the 1775-1783 one! You seemed to have forgotten about that one!
@sometimesright @OrcasThunder I am talking about armed revolts against the government of the USA.Â
As I am sure most who actually follow history will tell you, there WAS no "USA" at that time.
@sometimesrightAbsolutely right. His ancestor could be George Washington for all it matters, and if it was no doubt George would be spinning in his grave. Orcas doesn't deserve the freedom he was born with here because he's constantly trying to throw it away and do the same to his countrymen.Â
Orcas you belong in China or North Korea. They have gun control.Â
@OrcasThunder @sometimesrightYou are so full of it.
You respect NO American values, because the underlying foundation of every American value is freedom and you seem to hate that. Our freedom begins and ends with a right to bear arms that shall not be infringed.Â
Infringed, you should look that word up because you don't seem to understand it:
in·fringe(n-frnj)v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·esv.tr.1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
Orcas. "Wow you would have made a great loyalist"...and you immediately go to your ancestors. Man you need a logic lesson. Just because your supposed ancestors were not loyalists, does nothing to prove you would not have been one. That is my point, your arguing from authority did nothing to answer the charge!
@sometimesright Talk to your strawman NW-economist about it - he asked the question, I answered it. And I don't see you being included in that discussion until you barged in. Or...is he REALLY your straw man, and you forgot which name you were using?
@Orcas..and my point is your ancestors fighting history means nothing in this debate. It is nothing more than a bad attempt to argue from authority!
@Orcas. That is what the Russians and we have said about Afganistan too! You know little of warfare and that is obvious. The only way to root out armed people is with armed people. Eventualy infantry must go in. 300 million weapons would likely make that task difficult. BTW..Egypt, Syria, Libya are all proving you point silly as we speak. You are assuming the current military would follow your liberal ideas of a dictatorship. If revolution comes it will come from the military as it always does in history an armed populace just makes it less likely that they will fall vicitm to either side.
@sometimesright Did you even read the post by NW-economist that I was responding to? Since I did not live in that time I could not answer for myself directly - but I could offer some idea of where others in my family have stood on that issue, which gives some idea of what my heritage is.Â
His? Who knows? He sure doesn't respect any traditional American values that I am aware of.
@sometimesright"thus proving that armed revolt by a much smaller, less equiped and less trained force can prevail!"
A "smaller force"?Â
Not quite. The Brits may have been better equipped, but they did not have that much superiority in numbers - and that depended on the battle and location.
Keep in mind that for a lot of the war, the Brits had other, more urgent, tasks to deal with around the world - for instance dealing with the French and other more traditional enemies.Â
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War:
"About 250,000 men served as regulars or as militiamen for the Revolutionary cause in the eight years of the war, but there were never more than 90,000 men under arms at one time."
While, for the British: " By 1779, the number of British and German troops stationed in North America was over 60,000, although these were spread from Canada to Florida"
In addition there were loyalists who fought for the Brits,and French and Germans who were on the Colonial side...these numbers probably balanced out over the war.Â
But the Brits had one problem the Colonials didn't - a very long and slow supply line. They also towards the end of the war were using criminals as soldiers, not the most enthusiastic manpower pool.
 So...the Brits did not have a "larger force", and towards the end they did not have the best of manpower to draw on. The numbers actually favored the Colonials because most of their militia units were drawn from the local area.
But all of that does not say a thing about a modern rebellion within the US...the US military has a large pool of manpower, has aircraft (including drones) that can be used for subservience and as ordinance platforms - something that would quickly be secured against diversion by any rebels.
They also control a large communication system, something an unlikely large rebel force would lack since the civilian cell phone satellites could be turned off.
Something else to keep in mind - deny it at your peril - there would be many loyal Americans who would be more than happy to shut you guys down cold...
Orcas..here we go..arguing from authority (even if it is 250 years removed). Can you debate without logical fallacies? My ancestors also fought in the American Revolution and the Civil War. So that must make me an expert because of the genes they passed onto me! What does your family history have to do with this debate?Â
@Orcas...thank you for proving my point even further. So only 1/3 of the colonists fought a successful war for independence against the entire might of the British Empire and another 1/3 of loyalists...thus proving that armed revolt by a much smaller, less equiped and less trained force can prevail! Man you make this too easy!
@NW-Economist@OrcasThunder@sometimesright"Wow you'd have made a great loyalist."
I can only speak from the vantage of 5 of my ancestors who fought in that war...on the rebel side. One at Lexington, one at Yorktown, the other 3 in battles along the way. OK, one of the 3 was in the militia for the first 6 months, then left for Long Island (a British held area) to become a merchant supplying the British - and a couple of months before the end of the war showed up in his Father's CT militia unit...as a Sargent...
It's been long debated, and never really shown either way, that he may have been a Yankee spy passing along information on the Redcoats...on the other hand, I think he was just a venture capitalist taking advantage of an opportunity that only comes around once in a lifetime...he did, after all, move his entire family North to Canada at the end of the war, having heard that the Brits were giving free land to Loyalists in Ontario. That was just after he sold the 10,000 acres of CT land his father had given him for coming home...Â
But fear not, the pulse of a true American lived on in his grandson, who came south to join the 10th Michigan Cavalry Regiment which spent the Civil War fighting the Rebs in Tennessee - and was involved in the arrest of Jeff Davis...
@OrcasThunder @sometimesrightWow you'd have made a great loyalist. You probably would have happily had British soldiers quartering in your house and doing whatever they pleased with your property, money and female family members.
I bet you'd have even informed on suspected "rebel" neighbors to them too.
Why don't you move back to the UK if you love it so much?
Better yet, move to Mexico, they don't have a right to bear arms, in fact they banned them completely. I hear there's no crime down there, you'll love it!
@sometimesright@OrcasThunderWhat I did was start at the time of the passing of the 2nd Amendment.Â
You also seem to miss one important fact from that rebellion against the British - that only an estimated one/third of the people in the colonies supported the effort...one/third really didn't care, and fully one/third actually supported and fought on the side of the Brits! At the end of the war, that last third of the population was forced to flee the new country, had their property confiscated, and had to move north to the land they though of as "free".
And, as an end to this farce of a debate, for those who talk of armed revolt against our elected government, think on these words of Daniel Leonard, a Massachusetts loyalist, who wrote, âWhen government is destroyed, whether by men who love liberty or by men who do not, there are then no laws to protect the weak against the powerful or the good against the wicked.â.
@OrcasThunder @sometimesright Yes, I know..you conveniently started your diatribe a few years AFTER the most successful rebellion in the history of the world! I was pointing this misstep out to you! Nice try though!
@sometimesright @OrcasThunderDon't bother StonedThunder with facts like the American revolution or reminding him that the civil rights movement was far from peaceful (firehoses, beatings, lynchings, shootouts, assassination of MLK, etc.) Facts don't suit him.Â
@Orcas...Man you pick at straws! The majority of the country was white, the majority of the country voted for people who passed the laws to stop this! Just because YOU are able to find a biggoted corner of your world does not mean that most of the people were for segregation and Jim Crow laws. The FACT that these laws were passed to change further Civil Rights proves that most people were for it! Simple political math!
@sometimesright@NW-Economist@OrcasThunder"Most of the country was for it,"
You really need to take a remedial course in American History...
I remember well the obstacles to equality built into the Northern cities - red-lining, segregated (by location rather than law) schools, businesses that would not serve - or employ people of color, unbalanced and unequal public services to Black neighborhoods, a small - if it even existed - proportion of police departments who were not White. Many of the large cities in the North were as segregated as in the South, only there is was political and economics that enforced it, not declared law. In many ways it was far more insidious than what was seen in the South.Â
I was in high school in 1959 in Tacoma - at Stadium - and I remember the cries when we had 4 or 5 Black students enroll there (at that time, Lincoln was the accepted "Black School" in town). There were some parents who made noises about pulling their kids out if that was allowed to happen. But it did, and within a year or so more Blacks enrolled. They were accepted by most of us - largely because of how well they performed on the sports teams.Â
I remember shooting photos for some friends in a rock band that performed for school and other functions - 4 Blacks and 1 White. I also remember that, when the band took breaks and records were played on the PA system, one of the Black kids asked a White girl to dance with him - she said OK, but several of the young men walked over and separated them...that wasn't allowed.Â
So if you are of the delusion that life in the North was so hunky dory for Blacks in the White society, get some help from someone who lived through it.
Before 1965, how many Blacks were in elected offices that had impact on White people? How many large businesses had Blacks as management? How many blacks in large Northern cities were allowed to purchase a home anywhere in the city they wanted to - the answer was NONE.
For some understanding of what life for Blacks was like at that time, read these words:
"In Bedford-Stuyvesant the members of Brooklyn CORE were ordinary people. They worked as proofreaders, postal workers, bus drivers, librarians and mechanics. Their first campaign attacked widespread practices of housing discrimination that prevented African Americans from renting apartments in certain neighborhoods. They targeted individual landlords and realtors who refused to rent to black tenants, and their efforts gained substantial publicity in local newspapers. Many black families and individuals attained better apartments thanks to Brooklyn CORE efforts.
Brooklyn CORE was less successful when it attempted borough-wide campaigns to open employment or improve public schools. The Ebinger Baking Company, whose retail stores and distribution depots throughout Brooklyn and Queens employed hundreds of working class citizens, had an unspoken policy against hiring African Americans. For more than a year, Brooklyn CORE fought to open jobs for blacks at Ebingerâs, culminating in a dramatic standoff in which members of Brooklyn CORE lay down in front of Ebingerâs delivery trucks and prevented them from making deliveries. The company promised to hire more African Americans, but when the media attention died down and the boycotts and protests ended, it was back to business as usual.
Part of the reason Brooklyn CORE had so few victories was because most politicians, editorialists and average citizens argued that black neighborhoods were dirty because their residents did not care enough to keep them clean; public schools with large numbers of black children failed because the parents did not value education; black unemployment was so high because African Americans were lazy. A major challenge for urban civil rights activists of the 1960s was proving to powerbrokers that racially discriminatory practices existed. Because so many citizens associated racism with images they saw in the South they were blind to the ways racism shaped life in their own backyard. Historians of the civil rights movement cannot afford to make the same mistake.
Many of the issues Brooklyn CORE fought against may sound familiar. Social and economic problems continue to characterize race relations in the Untied States. Annual celebrations and historical narratives of the civil rights movement that ignore this history while glorifying the victories in the South allow citizens to think the movement is over and that it ended in a total victory. In reality, there are many unfinished struggles of the civil rights movement, and so much work yet to be done."
http://www.fordham.edu/campus_resources/enewsroom/inside_fordham/february_2_2007/in_focus_faculty_and/sapientia_et_doctrin_24893.asp
@OrcasThunder @NW-Economist @sometimesright You failed to respond to the part that the Civil Rights movement started BEFORE the Civil War...thus the freedom and equality of African Americans was not a bloodless rebellion. It was the bloodiest in our history! Nice try again!
@OrcasThunder @NW-Economist @sometimesrightAs usual you completely missed the obvious point: that the civil rights movement was not peaceful as the people attempting to peacefully protest got screwed violently over and over. They should have fought back more than the few who did, or do you think their movement was worth all the blacks who got murdered? I bet their families would have preferred them to fight back rather than die. And they couldn't fight back effectively because law enforcement wouldn't allow them to be armed.Â
Much of the civil rights movement was pursuing equality with regards to firearms. MLK applied for a CPL but was denied. He should have had one.
I am ashamed of how law enforcement in this country treated blacks and the blacks had every right to arm themselves and fight back. Some of them did.
@NW-Economist@sometimesright@OrcasThunder"reminding him that the civil rights movement was far from peaceful (firehoses, beatings, lynchings, shootouts, assassination of MLK, etc.)"
Are you seriously putting those actions on the people who were in peaceful revolt against the existing system?
The ones responsible for the "firehoses, beatings, lynchings, shootouts, assassination of MLK, etc" werethose who used force, including guns, against peaceful demonstrators.
@NW-Economist @sometimesright @OrcasThunder The other thing he fails to realize is that the Civil Rights movement was never in danger of being a rebellion. Most of the country was for it, just had to hammer out some idiot Democrats down in the south! Also the Civil Rights movement killed more Americans than all other wars combined. It actually started in 1860 not 1956!
Please review the video and conference of Black Leaders speaking out against Gun Control at the National Press Club in Washington DC on Feb 22, 2013. Â Stacy Swimp (Black Scholar) of Project 21, who studied black history and history of gun control laws discuss the racist underpinning of gun control and gun registration laws. Â
This is also true with the Southern Blacks, who suffered from Democrats engaging in gun control and registration to suppress black voters and disarm the black just before the KKK went marching through town.  Please study the first gun control laws passed by Democrats, History of Blacks in the South,  Democratic voter suppression with gun control and registration. Â
Unfortunately for the liberal revisionist historians, many WW2 survivors from Hitler's regime testified before video cameras about what really happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvLdRz5pF7s
It is funny that when the arrow hits close to home liberals scream foul. Hitler did institute gun control on everyone but Aryan Germans and eventually just the ones who were part of the NAZI party. To say that the Jews would have gotten it worse had they resisted is just plain stupid. How much worse can you get than almost all of you gassed and burned up in furnaces? Switzerland only had 4 million people in 1940 surrounded by a hostile population of 500 million throughout Europe. No way could they have stood up by the logic on this forum. Guess what? Hitler and his buddies went around them. More Jews were saved by the armed Swiss than any other government and it was because they were all armed. The very fact that 220 Jews (which is the number that actively fought in the 1943 Warsaw Uprising) held off over 2500 Nazis, including nearly 900 Waffen SS for over a month with little more than a pistol a peice and a handful of rifles shows how stupid the argument is that the Jews could not do damage with weapons.Â
@sometimesright
sometimesright wrote:Â "The very fact that 220 Jews (which is the number that actively fought in the 1943 Warsaw Uprising) held off over 2500 Nazis, including nearly 900 Waffen SS for over a month with little more than a pistol a peice and a handful of rifles shows how stupid the argument is that the Jews could not do damage with weapons."
Most of the "damage" they did was to their own side. A couple hundred Jews actively fought; about 13,000 Jews were killed as a result, with a couple dozen (at most) Nazis killed. That doesn't sound like a successful military campaign to me.
@Sutekh @sometimesright So are you two actuallly attempting to say that if the Jews had not had an uprising in 1943 they would have survived the war? You can't possibly be this uneducated. Pick up a frigin' history book! The NAZIs were only using the ghettos as holding tanks until they could transport them to the killing factories.Â
@sometimesright @SutekhYou shouldn't be surprised, these clowns are the product of liberal revisionist history that tries to blame the Jews for the Holocaust, which is terrible. They are trying to say that the victims were responsible. It's like saying that a girl is at fault if she's raped.Â
@Sutekh @sometimesright By 1943 they already knew their destination and not only did the 13,000 that were killed as an aftermath of the uprising die, the other 500,000 were also eventually marched off to gas chambers! What exactly do you think they gained by not fighting? My point, which zoomed over all of your heads is that 220 men and women with limited small arms and some Molotov cocktails held off 2,000 NAZIs of which half of those were the well trained Waffen SS. Imagine if all 6 million Jews had guns? 4 million Swiss kept the NAZIs and their allies at bay for the entire war!
@Sutekh@sometimesright"A couple hundred Jews actively fought; about 13,000 Jews were killed as a result, with a couple dozen (at most) Nazis killed. That doesn't sound like a successful military campaign to me."
Well, it works if you want to emulate events like the Branch Davidians at Waco...personally, it sounds like a one way journey to me.
@OrcasThunder @sometimesrightYou are done. Because you still don't understand what hard and soft power are, or how an armed American populace serves as an ongoing deterrent to the government so that a revolution WON'T be necessary.Â
@OrcasThunder @NW-Economist @Sutekh @sometimesright"You people" what the hell are you talking about? You know nothing about me or the majority of my political beliefs.
It must really boggle your mind that so many different and even opposing political groups agree on the importance of firearms. Did you know that the LBGT community in Washington is one of the groups with the highest percentage of firearm ownership in the state? I bet you didn't. Typical ignorance from you.Â
@Orcas "Is that what you really want? "Independence" from the USA? Or a chance to repeat the worse example in our history in the use of violence?"...that my friend is what is known as a strawman. I am advocating nothing. I am simply proving using your own words how misquided you and your sense of history is. You keep stating that we have solved our problems with politics and I have shown you that it not the case and never has been. The only thing that keeps our government in check is an armed citizenry. Anywhere there is not one, eventually a dictatorship will arise. That is a fact of history. I am not the one who is using force, the government is. Once again. What happens if I decide to not follow the law? I notice you refuse to answer this. Will I be peacefully left alone to continue not following it, or will ultimately someone with a gun will force me to follow it with violence or the threat of it!
@sometimesright"You stated that "we change laws by political means, not violent revolution"...I simply showed you he two most pivotal times in our history where we settled our differences with VIOLENCE, not politics."
Simply is an uderstatement.
The 1st case was the war that won our independance.Â
The second was a losing cause.
Is that what you really want? "Independence" from the USA? Or a chance to repeat the worse example in our history in the use of violence?
Are you that far gone from following the rule of law that your only answer is force? If you can't get your way by screaming, you pull a gun and start shooting?
If that's the case, you aren't worth talking to - you are no better that the white supremacists and skinheads who talk a big game but can't manage to spit when the right wing hits the fan.Â
We are done.
@orcas. You stated that "we change laws by political means, not violent revolution"...I simply showed you he two most pivotal times in our history where we settled our differences with VIOLENCE, not politics. BTW...politics is nothing more than the threat of violence by the stronger side. If I decide to not follow the laws your side passes what happens to make me do it? Ultimately someone employed by your side will force me using violence to do it!Â
@sometimesright"What the heck was the American Revolution and the Civil War?"
The American Revolution was where it started.
The Civil War was where a portion of the nation decided to use violence and force to do what it could not do by legal means, and lost the war and for a time their freedoms.
You might want to spend some quality time exploring http://www.history.com/topics/american-history
@Ocras. "we change laws by political means, not violent revolution"...What the heck was the American Revolution and the Civil War?
@NW-Economist @OrcasThunder @Sutekh @sometimesright Actually, I was comparing the Branch Dividians with you people. You have the same kind of "mission", the same kind of mentality, and the same lack of comprehension of the REASON this nation has lasted so long is because we change laws by political means, not violent revolution.
@OrcasThunder @Sutekh @sometimesrightWow, you have the guts to compare the Jews who fought for their lives and to help some escape the Warsaw ghetto to the branch davidians?You better not travel to Germany or Israel and spout that crap, they'd throw you in jail.Â
@Sutekh @sometimesrightYou make a great Nazi spokesman/apologist. I bet you'd have been a great Baghdad Bob too!
"The rumors that the red army is nearing Berlin are totally outrageous! We are repelling the soviet invaders with all force!"
That would have been you.
Sutehk, those Jews would have rathered die fighting than going off meekly to the concentration camps, which by then they knew about.
I guess in your world because you figured it was "inevitable" given the Germans had "tanks" and more troops that you would have preferred the Jews go down without a fight to avoid "unnecessary casualties" among the german troops.Â
You are disgusting. I hope you never say this to a Jewish person in real life, and don't try to visit Israel or Germany.Â
@factchekrNo, just don't like racist idiots who try to insult Jews and rewrite the history of WW2.
@NW-Economist Wow! Right off with the name calling. You really don't like having your delusions challenged, do you!
BTW...I bet the British said the same thing about our Founders...no way could a bunch of rag tag colonists hold off the might of the British Red Coats!
You lefties can whine, piss and moan all you want, but I'll guarantee you, there'll be no one taking my guns. In fact, I'm getting more as soon as I can.
I hear most of the pissing and moaning coming from the Righties.
In the morass of historical ignorance that passes for political dialogue in today's America, Hitler basically serves the role of cartoon boogeyman. Actually examining what the Nazis did is shunned, since it frequently contradicts whatever point the Hitler-invoker was trying to make. Gun laws are a perfect example of this.
Furthermore, it is sheer folly to argue (as does Charles Heller) that the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising could have achieved some kind of military victory over the Wehrmacht if they'd only had more small arms. At most, they would have provoked even worse retaliations from the Nazis.
@Sutekh How much worse extreme can you get than to all being rounded up and gassed? Also, Hitler did instituted gun control on everyone but the NAZIs, in other words, if you were not a good Aryan German, you could not own a gun.Â
@sometimesright@Sutekh"if you were not a good Aryan German, you could not own a gun."
Look at the picture at the top of this article - does that look like a "good ARYAN" to you?Â
Black hair. Protruding nose. Slanted dark eyes.Â
Compare that to http://www.thearyanrace.a-b-o-p.com/Images/scandinavian.jpgÂ
And yet, no one told him that HE couldn't own guns...
Maybe someone should have tried a little gun control on him - things might have been a lot different.
@Orcas...do you have a point? They called themselves Aryan and only allowed other people that they considered Aryan to own guns! How hard is that to understand?
@sometimesright@OrcasThunder@Sutekh"They "warped the definition"...what the heck does that mean? They considered themselves Aryans and pushed this xenophobic monster onto the rest of the world."
You just answered you own question...
@OrcasThunder @sometimesright @Sutekh You have ducked and dodged the main point with this nonsense side track into Hitler's appearance. The FACT is that unless you were akin to Hitler's beliefs, you were not allowed to own a firearm. This is not loosening of gun control when only ONE political party is allowed to be armed! Jews, Poles, Gypsy's, many Christians (such as Bonhoeffer) and many other undesirables (namely anyone who was not part of the NAZI party) were not allowed to own a firearm.
@OrcasThunder @sometimesright @Sutekh They "warped the definition"...what the heck does that mean? They considered themselves Aryans and pushed this xenophobic monster onto the rest of the world. It matters not that you think 60 odd years later that they weren't, what matters is that they thought they were and killed all those who opposed them (even other Aryans that disagreed with the NAZI party).
@sometimesright@OrcasThunder@Sutekh "So you are actually suggesting that Hitler didn't consider himself an Aryan? "
Far from it - he and those around him warped that definition to somehow include themselves.Â
My point is that their redefinition of the truth puts the lie to your statement that "if you were not a good Aryan German, you could not own a gun."
As a matter of fact, MANY Germans who did not look like the Aryan "ideal" did have guns under that regime - the only people NOT able to get permits were the Jews, and those who were not thought to be loyal Germans. Since at the start of the war MOST Germans supported the regime, there was no need for large scale controls.Â
Your use of this maniac as the poster boy of gun ownership is not only insane, it is insulting. Â
@OrcasThunder @sometimesright @Sutekh So you are actually suggesting that Hitler didn't consider himself an Aryan? You can't be this ignorant?
@SutekhAs usual you are wrong in the extreme and cherry pick facts that you use to support your absurd assertions.
Having an armed society is an ONGOING deterrent to government abuse. This is why disarmament usually comes before things like attempted genocide.
In America the armed citizenry serves as a deterrent that limits the abuses of the government and keeps the government partially afraid of the populace and is not to abusive.Â
If the Jews had remained armed the government wouldn't have felt as secure in persecuting them.
Try to learn real history and use critical thinking skills instead of blandly repeating the Nazi apologist crap you picked up from Seattle public schools.Â
@NW-Economist@Sutekh
There's not much to reply to in your post, NW-Economist, because as usual, your "argument" consists solely of personal insults and outright myths which are disproven by the facts at hand.
The problem facing the militant Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was not a lack of small arms; it was the fact that they were desperately outnumbered and surrounded on all sides by an enemy with no qualms about attacking civilians. Hiding in buildings doesn't help when your opponents simply set fire to the whole city block.
You say, "Having an armed society is an ONGOING deterrent to government abuse.... If the Jews had remained armed the government wouldn't have felt as secure in persecuting them." Well, the Warsaw Jews had submachine guns and grenades, and it certainly didn't deter the Nazis from wiping them out.
You say, "In America the armed citizenry serves as a deterrent that limits the abuses of the government and keeps the government partially afraid of the populace and is not to abusive."[sic]
This is blatantly false. We have, in the Obama administration, probably the worst abusers of civil liberties that have ever occupied the Executive Branch in this country. This happened despite the presence of a heavily armed citizenry. And really, if you think about it, what exactly would be the mechanism for armed citizens to "limit" this abuse? Armed insurrection? The Second Amendment was written to allow States to put down armed insurrections. You seem to believe the exact opposite, in spite of all logic and common sense.
@T H I S @NW-Economist @OrcasThunder @SutekhYou make a great Obamaniac. You don't deserve the efforts of people like Senator Rand Paul who had to filibuster on the Senate floor for over 10 hours just to get the Obama administration to publicly state that it would not use drone strikes on Americans on US soil. Â
@NW-Economist @OrcasThunder @SutekhÂ
Look, I get it, you have these romanticed ideas of using your guns to rise up and rebuild the nation the way you think it should be. I am sure you spend way too much time drinking Maddog 20/20 while watching red dawn and thinking, "Geee, maybe that could be me one day."Â
It won't. In fact those other fantisies you have are far more likely to happen. Â
@OrcasThunder @NW-Economist @SutekhYou left out the one major example which our country was founded on, the armed colonists rising up against the British government and creating a new nation. More history failures from your brain.Â
@NW-Economist@OrcasThunder@Sutekh"And the Constitution is an empty document without an armed citizenry to defend it and give it teeth."
The ONLY two examples of that "armed citizenry" even trying to change the Federal Government were in 1791-1794, and in 1860-1865 - and in the latter they committed treason in the attempt.
And...in both cases, they lost.
In the Civil War, the majority of the nation joined with the government to put the revolution down, and they succeeded
And THAT was in a time of no gun control laws. .Â
Armed insurrection is the last hope of those who do not believe in their ability to change events by legal, non-violent, ways. If they have lost faith in that ability, they have already lost.
@OrcasThunder @NW-Economist @SutekhDid you miss the part where those 4 weeks bought time for some of the people inside to escape WHO COULDN'T HAVE OTHERWISE? Your selective reading skills are extraordinary.
And the Constitution is an empty document without an armed citizenry to defend it and give it teeth.
You think your rights would exist if the government had the monopoly on violence?Â
@NW-Economist@Sutekh"It took four weeks."
But it still happened.All the guns in the ghetto couldn't stop it.
I'll place my future in the hands of the Constitution - a document that you seem to mistrust. Â
@Sutekh @NW-EconomistYou've shown that you are basically a neo-Nazi Hitler-apologist determined to make it look like the Jews never stood a chance and shouldn't have even tried to resist.Â
You have a warped view of history, I suggest you learn some.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/grobres.html
Facing them were almost 3,000 crack German troops with 7,000 reinforcements available. Tanks and heavy artillery surrounded the ghetto. General Heinrich Himmler promised Adolf Hitler that the uprising would be quelled in three days, and the ghetto would be destroyed. It took four weeks.
That was time that those Nazi troops were tied up and it aided the war effort. It also gave other Jewish communities more time to evacuate. Those Jews were heroes and pulled off quite a David v Goliath in holding out as long as they did. Just because you are too stupid to see the obvious benefits of it doesn't make their sacrifice any less noble.Â
I happen to know a family that escaped the Warsaw ghetto due to the actions of the fighters who diverted the troops and managed to get about 200 people out through a hole in the lines.Â
You don't understand the concept of sacrifice and devotion to fellow man. Those Jews did and your modern, liberal revisionist history attempts to paint the Jews as foolish for doing everything they could to resist and making them appear futile insults their memory.Â
I suggest you stay away from Germany or Israel.Â
@nw-economist
"Having an armed society is an ONGOING deterrent to government abuse. This is why disarmament usually comes before things like attempted genocide."
And this has happened in every country that has implimented strong gun control? Or 2-3 occasions in history? Â
And what about when it is the citizens doing the disarming becuase they are insisting the government do it? Â
As usual, your arguments are pretty poorly thought out, and simplisticly ignorant.
@T H I SYou are trying to compare two different things and then play mix and match games.Â
Culture is different from political forms of control and domination.
The reasons for violence in America are different from the reasons for violence elsewhere, but we can still compare the effects of gun control as social policy and see that they have failed miserably elsewhere.
A 1st grader wouldn't have problems with that logic, however you must have flunked kindergarten.Â
@NW-Economist
It's a straw man because you know the US is unique and not good for comparison with many other cultures
then why are you doing it?
@T H I S @NW-EconomistIt's a straw man because you know the US is unique and not good for comparison with many other cultures.
As far as background checks go, why don't you see what this WW2 survivor of Hitler's regime has to say about background checks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvLdRz5pF7s
@NW-Economist @T H I S
Oh look, another rushrules alt. What are you up to, 5 now?
So please tell me how exactly is is a strawman? I am going to guess that you can't or will whip out the "if i have to explain it" crap.
Does it have to happen everywhere to serve as a possible warning?
I'd expect it to happen at least as many times as it hasn't. But if you want to make decisions based on the exception to the rule rather than the rule itself, then feel free to do so while accusing everyone else of making strawman arguments.
Take into account, we aren't even talking about "banning guns." Heck, just talking about background checks freak you out, so tell us again who is making the strawman.
@T H I STalk about a straw man. Does it have to happen everywhere to serve as a possible warning? What's your plan? To socially experiment with gun control and if the government HAPPENS to get totalitarian on you hop into a time machine, go back and stop it from happening?Â
This is all about probability. And at this time the probability is that you are too cowardly to fight for your own liberty. You should move to China, they are more in line with the civil rights and liberties you seem to want.Â
@NW-Economist@Sutekh"If the Jews had remained armed the government wouldn't have felt as secure in persecuting them."
Since the Jews in Germany were about 2% of the population, and the majority of the other 98% hated the Jews, it's likely that armed Jewish resistance within Germany would have brought out a large number of that 98% to crush it - the military wouldn't have needed to bother.
And among our own armed citizens, there are already a number who would be more than willing to take on the "illegals" if given an excuse like that.Â
And then there are the ones who actually think that "they" could hold off the armed US military...you would have a better chance at winning the lottery...
@OrcasThunder @NW-EconomistYou really have no significant brain function do you?
I've said over and over that the point of organizations like oathkeepers is to remind the politicians that large portions of the military are aware of the constitution and are publicly stating that they will not obey orders to violate it, such as domestic occupation, martial law, firearm seizure and citizen internment.
@NW-Economist@OrcasThunderActually, he was prosecuted - and convicted -Â for following an illegal order...and any order to not act against armed actions by US citizens, in resistance to US and/or State government, would be by definition an illegal order.Â
What you are advocating is a military coup, which would be an overt act of treason against the American government. While you do have the Constitutional right to advocate this, any overt action on your part could be construed as treason. For instance, "the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the distribution of leaflets protesting the draft during World War I was not constitutionally protected speech (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919])."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason
@OrcasThunder @NW-EconomistYou just proved my point. It wasn't a legal order. And that's exactly why large chunks of the military would not cooperate.Â
@NW-Economist@OrcasThunder"If the shoe fits, wear it."
You seem to have an abundance of shoes...
@NW-Economist@OrcasThunder "The government prosecuted a soldier for FOLLOWING ORDERS. "
It was not a legal order - and by theUCMJ, he had not only a right to disobey it, but an OBLIGATION to disobey that order:
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
http://www.omjp.org/ArtLarryDisobey.html
@stratoonist @NW-Economist @OrcasThunder @SutekhWow you are a typical liberal liar, you had to chop up that sentence you quoted from me just to make a point, instead, lets look at the whole sentence, from start to finish and then see where you're wrong:
"All of this is a huge foundation for the fact that large pluralities, if not an outright majority, of our military would refuse orders to crack down on a majority of the populace."
And then lets look at what I said at the end:
"However, as technology gets better and better, the government needs fewer and fewer bodies to control the population, so we can't allow the government to restrict civilian weapon technology in the way they keep trying to."
Facts are tough for you aren't they? I can't imagine do your job cutting up facts and rearranging sentences to say the opposite of what they really mean.
You seem to have a big honesty problem.Â
@NW-Economist@OrcasThunder@Sutekh "our military would refuse orders to crack down on a majority of the populace."
Well then, I guess we all don't need to be armed with military weapons after all, or fear our government as much as you appear to do. That's a relief!
@OrcasThunderIf the shoe fits, wear it. Until you educate yourself you should be thankful others are calling out your ignorance.Â
@OrcasThunderYou are ignorant as hell. Apparently you don't know about Vietnam or this:
http://www.shmoop.com/judicial-branch/my-lai-massacre-courts-martial.html
The government prosecuted a soldier for FOLLOWING ORDERS.Â
That's just one tiny example of the fact that just because an order is given that it doesn't mean it is legal or constitutional.
Here is a group of law enforcement organizations pledging to not enforce coming unconstitutional gun control measures:
http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/23/90-sheriffs-and-two-sheriffs-association
You see, if the executive can pretend that he can judge what is constitutional or not, then so can the states and executive entities within them, such as mayors, governors, sheriffs, etc.
Stop being an ostrich and see what is going on in the world.Â
@NW-Economist @OrcasThunder Once again you fall to using abusive names...
Typical.
@NW-Economist@OrcasThunderThere is another POV on that organization:
Oath Keepers and the Age of Treason Glenn Beck loves them. Tea Partiers court them. Congressmen listen to them. Meet the fast-growing "patriot" group that's recruiting soldiers to resist the Obama administration.
%s
By any definition, anyone advocating that members of the US military disobey that oath in a resistance to the US government is advocating disobedience of the US Constitution - and is advocating treason.Â
Since the US Government is elected by the people, as established by the Constitution, any violent action is an act against the US Constitution and IS an act of treason. That was established at the time of the secession by the South - those military members who chose to leave to revolt against the US government were guilty of treason.
@OrcasThunderAnd like a true liberal moron you resort to absurd semantics when you fall flat on your face and embarass yourself.Â
This must be your hero!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSY3PcCa4AU
Face it, you are an idiot.
Every time you have heard someone talk about military being somewhere peacefully the word used is STATIONED. Show me an instance where people talk about the military here in the US and say they are DEPLOYED. You can't.Â
Whereas the word deployed refers to an active military combat or occupation role. Even your own absurd definition showed this to be true. Typical libtard.Â
@NW-Economist@OrcasThunder@SutekhThat's a bit limited for a full picture...you were probably limited by #9...
Definition of DEPLOYtransitive verb1 a : to extend (a military unit) especially in width b : to place in battle formation or appropriate positions 2 : to spread out, utilize, or arrange for a deliberate purpose <deploy a sales force> <deploy a parachute> intransitive verb : to move, spread out, or function while being %s <the troops deployed along the front> <the parachute failed to deploy> â de·ploy·able adjective â de·ploy·ment noun %s%sExamples of DEPLOY%sÂ
@OrcasThunder @NW-EconomistGuess you've never heard of oath keepers have you? Typical liberal who doesn't know anything about the real military.Â
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/about/
"Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters whowillfulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.
Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial."
@NW-Economist"There is also a strong sense of duty"
Yes, duty to defend the US and it's government.Â
"Against all enemies, foreign and domestic"... that's part of the oath every service member swears to when they join up.
If you think that the US military is going to suddenly turn en-mass against the government, you need to take a long walk to think some more.
@OrcasThunder @NW-Economist @Sutekh
English is tough for you huh?
deployed  past participle, past tense of de·ploy (Verb)Verb
@tufa23 @NW-Economist @OrcasThunder @Sutekh"Dude" stop trying serious conversation and go back to smoking your new 502 commemorative bong.Â
@NW-Economist@OrcasThunder@Sutekh"Also, our army is not domestically deployed."
Not domestically deployed...Really?
Looks pretty well "deployed"Â to me:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/U.S._Military_Installations_Map.jpg
@NW-Economist @OrcasThunder @Sutekh  dude, you aren't in the "NW", you aren't an "economist", and it seems like your entire life is spent here hurling lame insults. ftw? is that your creed? your screed?Â
@OrcasThunder @NW-Economist @SutekhDoesn't surprise me your analytical skills are lacking all around.
In the US we don't have a "army political party." Also, our army is not domestically deployed. As far as politics of identity goes, our soldiers do not identify themselves as "Navy/Air Force/Marines, etc." over identifying themselves as Americans. There is also a strong sense of duty and reciprocity towards our freedoms for their duty. This is where the constant ideas that "soldiers are fighting for American freedom" keeps coming from. All of this is a huge foundation for the fact that large pluralities, if not an outright majority, of our military would refuse orders to crack down on a majority of the populace.Â
However, as technology gets better and better, the government needs fewer and fewer bodies to control the population, so we can't allow the government to restrict civilian weapon technology in the way they keep trying to.