Sheriffs are forming "2nd Amendment sanctuaries" refusing to enforce gun control
285 replies, posted
My point was that Jews themselves are pretty sure that being armed would have allowed them to put up a pretty good fight. The Nazi government was clearly aware of this and started by disarming them rather than throwing them into the camps from the outset.
I guess I can't, not entirely. I'm surprised I didn't think of that in depth.
One thing I can say is that nonviolent revolutions have also worked. Estonia regained its independence through singing
But yeah actually that's a good point. I guess I've been so focused on the idea of the 2A as a deterrent I didn't much think of it as a civil war sorta thing.
That's also true, but militaries always plan for every scenario and that was their plan if mainland occupation was an option -- don't.
I don't think I understand what makes guns such an integral part of American society. What's so important about them that people are willing to go to war over them? Why are they primordial to your society while most other western societies do fine without?
I agree that such measures would do wonders to drastically lower crime, poverty and partisanship. However I don't think that would quite make guns a non-issue.
Take Switzerland, for instance, a country which handles itself rather nicely, and which doesn't really need most of what you suggested at this point. Low crime, low poverty, the works. As I explained in another thread, a Swiss study observed that a reduction in gun ownership for a given part of the population led to a significant decrease in suicides for that demographic. It seems that whether a suicide-prone person owns a gun can be a deciding factor on whether they end their life, regardless of societal context.
So some form of control over gun ownership appears to be important, regardless of other factors. It's especially relevant to the US where a majority of gun deaths are suicides.
I'm very interested in the article now, could you maybe save the webpage or take pictures of the text?
They had plans to hit all up the Pacific coast but that was abandoned because of the "rifle behind every blade of grass." The Japanese were used to rolling over defenseless civilians and using them as playthings. In America in the 40s, there were no defenseless civilians and especially wouldn't be if an enemy invasion was pending. Japanese doctrine had no way to deal with that without just killing everyone and burning everything, which would be a pointless expenditure. To the best of my knowledge, Japan never had a clear plan on what to do next if the Pacific theater were ever to somehow shift in their favor, because basically everything boiled down to the fact that even American civilians would die fighting rather than capitulate.
One quick correction, the Nazis started disarming Jews very late into their rule. Reichswaffengesetz was established in 1938, while Hitler became supreme chancellor with VERY anti-semitic propaganda and laws in 1933.
Partisan as in biased. The word doesn't solely refer to adhering to a political party line, you know. Look it up.
Someone who is partisan strongly supports a particular person or cause, often without thinking carefully about the matter. "He is clearly too partisan to be a referee."
The official disarmament began late (but still before the camps were in full swing) but very early on in the Nazi rule it was made difficult for Jews to acquire and keep firearms in the same broad strokes that began to restrict their ability to own property and businesses.
France has a very similar historical background, yet we don't have a prevalent gun culture that we consider integral to French society.
Doesn't really answer my questions either.
Then I guess it's not as similar as you think it is?
Very explanatory, thanks for clarifying?
You mind actually answering the questions, or?
So "it wouldn't have helped in the long run, but would have hurt the ruling party a little bit" would be fair of me to say?
More so for Estonia, actually. We've been completely occupied by like 4 different cultures so we value our own culture as a thing and not guns as a thing.
Must be the whole singing revolution thing
It's about protecting the tools with which to revolt.
The new American government concerned itself heavily with how to ensure that the citizens could continue to do what was necessary to enforce the citizens' rule on the government.
They deemed that the best way to do that was to protect the tools with which the citizens would hold their government accountable: speech, spread of information, and -- when all else fails -- weaponry.
For all the similarities in history, to end up with a different result means they're not really that similar, idk, I'm not trying to be smart it just doesn't really make sense that they're "similar" but not?
I don't know why the US ended up the way it did, and France the way it did. I don't think anyone does, or could, fundamentally, that's probably lost to time.
At least for America, there was a period of rapid expansion from the 1830's onwards, that extended society into completely lawless land occupied only by natives, and wildlife. There wasn't a lot of rules, protection, or anything else, so guns were an extension of every western individual at that time.
The Wild West, and what it brought, and the years that followed it, only increased the legend of the gun in the US, so that's as good an answer as I'm really going to be able to provide.
See, this is what I mean. A post clears up pro-gun posters' misrepresentation and misconceptions. It gets disagrees by the usual pro-gun crowd, but no rebuttal. Instead, people focus on small details other posters brought up or nitpick on a specific word instead of addressing the rest, like Geel did.
If you guys want to have a healthy debate on those matters, you should provide responses as to why you feel that way rather than just rate posts, move on, and complain later that the anti-gun side never makes compelling arguments.
We can't really say. Many occupations have been shaken off by home front resistance. I think an active resistance benefited by previously available firearms would've been a pretty serious obstacle, but it's important to remember the Nazi war machine only really ran for about seven years and even at the very heights of its morale could never have run for very long without the immediate victory Hitler was counting on. The long-term effects of having an armed guerrilla insurgency in Nazi Germany cannot be studied.
That's more explanatory, but Zombinie was referring specifically to the American Revolution, not westward expansion. The former was a very similar historical context to the French revolution, so yes, if that were the decisive factor, then I would expect the French to end up being similar.
So if the Russian tanks HAD just simply driven over the Estonian's locked in arms, what would the result be?
Would your countrymen give up, or would they double down on the revolution?
To be honest, I was unaware of the details of this event, and it's pretty interesting and amazing that this happened. But if we're going to make "what if's" about the jewish populations in 1930's Germany then surely this is a question worth thinking about?
I mean, respectfully, this post was ignored because it wasn't the masterstroke you think it is. You seem to have completely overlooked the posts from proboardslol, Coyote, etc. in this thread and similar pearl-clutching/smug posts made in other threads that poison the well.
Hard to say since we don't have historical precedent for that, you're right in a sense.
I guess it's fair to say we have some idea of how certain Jewish paramilitary and Guerrilla forces were fairly easily stamped out in Nazi Germany, but we don't know how that would have worked had every Jew taken up arms at roughly the same time (lotsa problems with that happening as well, but I think it's fair to leave it here?)
In any case you've made your point and I've lost (most of) mine
I may be stubborn but I'm not unreasonable, sorry for using up your time so much.
Hey, I'm happy this discussion happened at the end of the day, and I'm happy it has anyone taking anything away from the "other side" as it were.
I know you guys have raised some decent points that I don't have answers for, so that's worth thinking about on my end.
I'm not really for gun control, but lately I've come to the conclusion that when the government becomes too powerful, the only reason most people will be grabbing thier guns is to pump or shoot them in the air.
I'd like to offer as well that if you have any smaller questions about gun ownership and issues affecting gun ownership in the US you are totally welcome to pop in the FP discord and chat it out with us: https://discord.gg/6Zrn2mG
Yes we do say mean things about you guys when you aren't looking
I would like to say keep out if youre from or in Europe. None of us want your irrelevant input on what you perceive to be issues. Leave the screaming, crying, shitposting, and piss baby antics here. Nobody wants Eurotrash in our server so stay out.
cyke no
No, no, it's a privilege. You weren't born with a gun embedded into your hands. In order to get one you still have to pay some dude to sell it to you. If it was a right, you'd be given a gun at birth, or on demand at any point of your choosing. If goods or services require the exchange of currency - which is something a lot of people don't have - then it is not a right, it's a privilege. You are privileged to have gun ownership.
Do you also contest the inherent right to life and happiness?
Hence why people don't take you seriously, and will argue with EcksDee or, almost anyone else instead.
This isn't an argument, it's an Adam Savage level "I reject reality and substitute my own" kind of quip.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.