Hitler Quote...still think we need Gun Control?

[sad_lonely_elf]

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police." ~ Adolf Hitler from Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations, Part Three: 6 February – 7 September 1942:

Do you still think we need gun control laws?

[Steam Punk Adept]

sad_lonely_elf

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police." ~ Adolf Hitler from Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations, Part Three: 6 February – 7 September 1942:

Do you still think we need gun control laws?

Congratulations! You've just invoked Godwin's Law. What this means is that you automatically lose whatever argument you're attempting to make by comparing apples to oranges. We do thank you for your attempt, but by invoking Godwin's Law, you show yourself to be little more than an internet troll. None-the-less, we thank you for your attempt at a thought out, though poorly conceived post. Please come back, and attempt to discuss again at another time when your brain isn't so addled by those pesky Nazis.

This post has been brought to you by the Committee for Prevention of Poor Trolling and Logic Bombs (CPPTLB)

[Keltoi Samurai]

Steam Punk Adept

sad_lonely_elf

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police." ~ Adolf Hitler from Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations, Part Three: 6 February – 7 September 1942:

Do you still think we need gun control laws?

Congratulations! You've just invoked Godwin's Law. What this means is that you automatically lose whatever argument you're attempting to make by comparing apples to oranges. We do thank you for your attempt, but by invoking Godwin's Law, you show yourself to be little more than an internet troll. None-the-less, we thank you for your attempt at a thought out, though poorly conceived post. Please come back, and attempt to discuss again at another time when your brain isn't so addled by those pesky Nazis.

This post has been brought to you by the Committee for Prevention of Poor Trolling and Logic Bombs (CPPTLB)

if you feel his argument is in error, why not try and actually refute it, rather than trying to dodge the subject by Zoidberging at it?

as much as you insist "anything mentioning nazis" is inherently a faulty argument, is "your argument is bad and you should feel bad" really so much better?

really, you call OP a troll, but then you proceed to stoop willingly to his level, leaving him in prime position to beat you with his years of experience.

[dragged into sunlight]

you know hitler used sugar in his coffee right

[Major Lima Charlie]

Keltoi Samurai

Steam Punk Adept

sad_lonely_elf

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police." ~ Adolf Hitler from Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations, Part Three: 6 February – 7 September 1942:

Do you still think we need gun control laws?

Congratulations! You've just invoked Godwin's Law. What this means is that you automatically lose whatever argument you're attempting to make by comparing apples to oranges. We do thank you for your attempt, but by invoking Godwin's Law, you show yourself to be little more than an internet troll. None-the-less, we thank you for your attempt at a thought out, though poorly conceived post. Please come back, and attempt to discuss again at another time when your brain isn't so addled by those pesky Nazis.

This post has been brought to you by the Committee for Prevention of Poor Trolling and Logic Bombs (CPPTLB)

if you feel his argument is in error, why not try and actually refute it, rather than trying to dodge the subject by Zoidberging at it?

as much as you insist "anything mentioning nazis" is inherently a faulty argument, is "your argument is bad and you should feel bad" really so much better?

really, you call OP a troll, but then you proceed to stoop willingly to his level, leaving him in prime position to beat you with his years of experience.

You do not have to refute a logical fallacy. If that were the case, academic debate would quickly devolve into morons commandeering discussion by talking loads of s**t just to waste time.

They are not obligated to prove the OP wrong. They just proved that their argument was fallacious. Nothing more is needed.

[Michael Noire]

Steam Punk Adept

sad_lonely_elf

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police." ~ Adolf Hitler from Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations, Part Three: 6 February – 7 September 1942:

Do you still think we need gun control laws?

Congratulations! You've just invoked Godwin's Law. What this means is that you automatically lose whatever argument you're attempting to make by comparing apples to oranges. We do thank you for your attempt, but by invoking Godwin's Law, you show yourself to be little more than an internet troll. None-the-less, we thank you for your attempt at a thought out, though poorly conceived post. Please come back, and attempt to discuss again at another time when your brain isn't so addled by those pesky Nazis.

This post has been brought to you by the Committee for Prevention of Poor Trolling and Logic Bombs (CPPTLB)

"Godwins law "is the battle cry of willfully ignorant masochists. If encouraging suicide wasn't a TOS violation, it would be the most appropriate form of discussion with these individuals.

[Michael Noire]

dragged into sunlight

you know hitler used sugar in his coffee right

I keep telling people coffee is evil - even if it is candy coated.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Major Lima Charlie

Keltoi Samurai

Steam Punk Adept

sad_lonely_elf

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police." ~ Adolf Hitler from Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations, Part Three: 6 February – 7 September 1942:

Do you still think we need gun control laws?

Congratulations! You've just invoked Godwin's Law. What this means is that you automatically lose whatever argument you're attempting to make by comparing apples to oranges. We do thank you for your attempt, but by invoking Godwin's Law, you show yourself to be little more than an internet troll. None-the-less, we thank you for your attempt at a thought out, though poorly conceived post. Please come back, and attempt to discuss again at another time when your brain isn't so addled by those pesky Nazis.

This post has been brought to you by the Committee for Prevention of Poor Trolling and Logic Bombs (CPPTLB)

if you feel his argument is in error, why not try and actually refute it, rather than trying to dodge the subject by Zoidberging at it?

as much as you insist "anything mentioning nazis" is inherently a faulty argument, is "your argument is bad and you should feel bad" really so much better?

really, you call OP a troll, but then you proceed to stoop willingly to his level, leaving him in prime position to beat you with his years of experience.

You do not have to refute a logical fallacy. If that were the case, academic debate would quickly devolve into morons commandeering discussion by talking loads of s**t just to waste time.

They are not obligated to prove the OP wrong. They just proved that their argument was fallacious. Nothing more is needed.

Actually, when the action is directly similar to a tyrant/dictators actions, it's not a Godwin. It's a legitimate comparison.
In this case, a gun grab is the exact same act performed by another who determined that whatever they decided they were going to do was legitimate. And yeah, that shitbag was ALSO extremely popular and given passes for many things that would be construed as stomping on rights.

[Major Lima Charlie]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Major Lima Charlie

Keltoi Samurai

Steam Punk Adept

sad_lonely_elf

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police." ~ Adolf Hitler from Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations, Part Three: 6 February – 7 September 1942:

Do you still think we need gun control laws?

Congratulations! You've just invoked Godwin's Law. What this means is that you automatically lose whatever argument you're attempting to make by comparing apples to oranges. We do thank you for your attempt, but by invoking Godwin's Law, you show yourself to be little more than an internet troll. None-the-less, we thank you for your attempt at a thought out, though poorly conceived post. Please come back, and attempt to discuss again at another time when your brain isn't so addled by those pesky Nazis.

This post has been brought to you by the Committee for Prevention of Poor Trolling and Logic Bombs (CPPTLB)

if you feel his argument is in error, why not try and actually refute it, rather than trying to dodge the subject by Zoidberging at it?

as much as you insist "anything mentioning nazis" is inherently a faulty argument, is "your argument is bad and you should feel bad" really so much better?

really, you call OP a troll, but then you proceed to stoop willingly to his level, leaving him in prime position to beat you with his years of experience.

You do not have to refute a logical fallacy. If that were the case, academic debate would quickly devolve into morons commandeering discussion by talking loads of s**t just to waste time.

They are not obligated to prove the OP wrong. They just proved that their argument was fallacious. Nothing more is needed.

Actually, when the action is directly similar to a tyrant/dictators actions, it's not a Godwin. It's a legitimate comparison.
In this case, a gun grab is the exact same act performed by another who determined that whatever they decided they were going to do was legitimate. And yeah, that shitbag was ALSO extremely popular and given passes for many things that would be construed as stomping on rights.

It is a Godwin. HITLER SAID IT SO IT MUST BE BAD.

Fascists have limited gun rights. That does not mean limitation of gun rights is a surefire indicator of fascism. It's logically fallacious.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Major Lima Charlie

Old Blue Collar Joe

Major Lima Charlie

Keltoi Samurai

Steam Punk Adept

sad_lonely_elf

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police." ~ Adolf Hitler from Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations, Part Three: 6 February – 7 September 1942:

Do you still think we need gun control laws?

Congratulations! You've just invoked Godwin's Law. What this means is that you automatically lose whatever argument you're attempting to make by comparing apples to oranges. We do thank you for your attempt, but by invoking Godwin's Law, you show yourself to be little more than an internet troll. None-the-less, we thank you for your attempt at a thought out, though poorly conceived post. Please come back, and attempt to discuss again at another time when your brain isn't so addled by those pesky Nazis.

This post has been brought to you by the Committee for Prevention of Poor Trolling and Logic Bombs (CPPTLB)

if you feel his argument is in error, why not try and actually refute it, rather than trying to dodge the subject by Zoidberging at it?

as much as you insist "anything mentioning nazis" is inherently a faulty argument, is "your argument is bad and you should feel bad" really so much better?

really, you call OP a troll, but then you proceed to stoop willingly to his level, leaving him in prime position to beat you with his years of experience.

You do not have to refute a logical fallacy. If that were the case, academic debate would quickly devolve into morons commandeering discussion by talking loads of s**t just to waste time.

They are not obligated to prove the OP wrong. They just proved that their argument was fallacious. Nothing more is needed.

Actually, when the action is directly similar to a tyrant/dictators actions, it's not a Godwin. It's a legitimate comparison.
In this case, a gun grab is the exact same act performed by another who determined that whatever they decided they were going to do was legitimate. And yeah, that shitbag was ALSO extremely popular and given passes for many things that would be construed as stomping on rights.

It is a Godwin. HITLER SAID IT SO IT MUST BE BAD.

Fascists have limited gun rights. That does not mean limitation of gun rights is a surefire indicator of fascism. It's logically fallacious.

Wrong. It is indeed a fascist move. It is only a fallacy to those who WANT them grabbed. It's anti-constitutional, as we already have too many laws against guns that violate the constitution.

[Major Lima Charlie]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Major Lima Charlie

Old Blue Collar Joe

Major Lima Charlie

Keltoi Samurai

if you feel his argument is in error, why not try and actually refute it, rather than trying to dodge the subject by Zoidberging at it?

as much as you insist "anything mentioning nazis" is inherently a faulty argument, is "your argument is bad and you should feel bad" really so much better?

really, you call OP a troll, but then you proceed to stoop willingly to his level, leaving him in prime position to beat you with his years of experience.

You do not have to refute a logical fallacy. If that were the case, academic debate would quickly devolve into morons commandeering discussion by talking loads of s**t just to waste time.

They are not obligated to prove the OP wrong. They just proved that their argument was fallacious. Nothing more is needed.

Actually, when the action is directly similar to a tyrant/dictators actions, it's not a Godwin. It's a legitimate comparison.
In this case, a gun grab is the exact same act performed by another who determined that whatever they decided they were going to do was legitimate. And yeah, that shitbag was ALSO extremely popular and given passes for many things that would be construed as stomping on rights.

It is a Godwin. HITLER SAID IT SO IT MUST BE BAD.

Fascists have limited gun rights. That does not mean limitation of gun rights is a surefire indicator of fascism. It's logically fallacious.

Wrong. It is indeed a fascist move. It is only a fallacy to those who WANT them grabbed. It's anti-constitutional, as we already have too many laws against guns that violate the constitution.

No, see, here's where you have to prove that gun revocation directly links to fascism. I'll wait. You will disappoint. Don't worry about it. You can't do it.

It's fallacious.

It is a quote unquote fascist move, as is any statist action, but that doesn't inherently make it a bad thing. Mind you, I oppose gun revocation.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Major Lima Charlie

Old Blue Collar Joe

Major Lima Charlie

Old Blue Collar Joe

Major Lima Charlie

Keltoi Samurai

if you feel his argument is in error, why not try and actually refute it, rather than trying to dodge the subject by Zoidberging at it?

as much as you insist "anything mentioning nazis" is inherently a faulty argument, is "your argument is bad and you should feel bad" really so much better?

really, you call OP a troll, but then you proceed to stoop willingly to his level, leaving him in prime position to beat you with his years of experience.

You do not have to refute a logical fallacy. If that were the case, academic debate would quickly devolve into morons commandeering discussion by talking loads of s**t just to waste time.

They are not obligated to prove the OP wrong. They just proved that their argument was fallacious. Nothing more is needed.

Actually, when the action is directly similar to a tyrant/dictators actions, it's not a Godwin. It's a legitimate comparison.
In this case, a gun grab is the exact same act performed by another who determined that whatever they decided they were going to do was legitimate. And yeah, that shitbag was ALSO extremely popular and given passes for many things that would be construed as stomping on rights.

It is a Godwin. HITLER SAID IT SO IT MUST BE BAD.

Fascists have limited gun rights. That does not mean limitation of gun rights is a surefire indicator of fascism. It's logically fallacious.

Wrong. It is indeed a fascist move. It is only a fallacy to those who WANT them grabbed. It's anti-constitutional, as we already have too many laws against guns that violate the constitution.

No, see, here's where you have to prove that gun revocation directly links to fascism. I'll wait. You will disappoint. Don't worry about it. You can't do it.

It's fallacious.

It is a quote unquote fascist move, as is any statist action, but that doesn't inherently make it a bad thing. Mind you, I oppose gun revocation.

Ya know, you can claim you're against it, but I seriously believe you're a huge proponent of it, because not one damn time have you ever said anything against your messiah nor gun control.
You can profess to be however you want. Your words prove the lie.
And going after firearms is definitely against the safety and protection of society, or did you forget that police have already been safely told they do NOT have to protect us?

[AliKat1988]

Keltoi Samurai

Steam Punk Adept

sad_lonely_elf

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police." ~ Adolf Hitler from Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations, Part Three: 6 February – 7 September 1942:

Do you still think we need gun control laws?

Congratulations! You've just invoked Godwin's Law. What this means is that you automatically lose whatever argument you're attempting to make by comparing apples to oranges. We do thank you for your attempt, but by invoking Godwin's Law, you show yourself to be little more than an internet troll. None-the-less, we thank you for your attempt at a thought out, though poorly conceived post. Please come back, and attempt to discuss again at another time when your brain isn't so addled by those pesky Nazis.

This post has been brought to you by the Committee for Prevention of Poor Trolling and Logic Bombs (CPPTLB)

if you feel his argument is in error, why not try and actually refute it, rather than trying to dodge the subject by Zoidberging at it?

as much as you insist "anything mentioning nazis" is inherently a faulty argument, is "your argument is bad and you should feel bad" really so much better?

really, you call OP a troll, but then you proceed to stoop willingly to his level, leaving him in prime position to beat you with his years of experience.

I can point out a major issue with the quotes about Hitler and guns. The quote could only be appropriately reference how selectively allowing certain groups to have guns is like Hitler. The reason why is that Hitler actually made gun laws far more liberal than his predecessor. He made it easier to get guns for the average citizen. The one thing was that he banned certain groups from having them like Jews or recently conquered groups.

[Glorious Leader Luna]

You know Der Fuhrer armies used Guns to Fight world war 2 right?

Obviously if your pro Gun your Pro Hitler and a Antisemite!!!!!1111oneoneone.

also that quote is about nations Ze Germans conquered not the Deutschland,
Because Deutschland, über alles, Über alles in der Welt.


Obviously any sane person would disarm a nation you just conquered (see Germany after the war)

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

AliKat1988

Keltoi Samurai

Steam Punk Adept

sad_lonely_elf

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police." ~ Adolf Hitler from Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations, Part Three: 6 February – 7 September 1942:

Do you still think we need gun control laws?

Congratulations! You've just invoked Godwin's Law. What this means is that you automatically lose whatever argument you're attempting to make by comparing apples to oranges. We do thank you for your attempt, but by invoking Godwin's Law, you show yourself to be little more than an internet troll. None-the-less, we thank you for your attempt at a thought out, though poorly conceived post. Please come back, and attempt to discuss again at another time when your brain isn't so addled by those pesky Nazis.

This post has been brought to you by the Committee for Prevention of Poor Trolling and Logic Bombs (CPPTLB)

if you feel his argument is in error, why not try and actually refute it, rather than trying to dodge the subject by Zoidberging at it?

as much as you insist "anything mentioning nazis" is inherently a faulty argument, is "your argument is bad and you should feel bad" really so much better?

really, you call OP a troll, but then you proceed to stoop willingly to his level, leaving him in prime position to beat you with his years of experience.

I can point out a major issue with the quotes about Hitler and guns. The quote could only be appropriately reference how selectively allowing certain groups to have guns is like Hitler. The reason why is that Hitler actually made gun laws far more liberal than his predecessor. He made it easier to get guns for the average citizen. The one thing was that he banned certain groups from having them like Jews or recently conquered groups.

If you look historically at the tyrants, Hitler included (remember that he also tightened laws up again.) gun seizure was always 'to protect'.
However, the US Supreme Court has already clearly stated that law enforcement does NOT have a duty to protect you.
They can literally stand on the corner and watch you get gunned down, and there's not a damn thing to be done about it.
Order a pizza and call 911. Time them. A lot of times the pizza will get there first.
You trust them. I refuse to. My families safety takes precedent.
Also the issue that the second isn't so much about personal protection. It's about the fact that, as citizens, it forces the government to be accountable to us, because the ability to revolt is always there.
In fact, the concept of certain weapons are 'only suitable for the military' flies in the very face of WHY they wrote the second.
It is, in fact, so that the citizens can go toe to toe with the military if needed to overthrow a tyrannical government.
And no, I'm not advocating a revolt. (Yet.)