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

[The20]

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?

Is the US government trying to conquer the USA?

[AliKat1988]

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.)

I am not sure how that is related directly to the intention of my post and can only see it if you misunderstood why I argued as I did. I merely was saying that Hitler was a poor example to use for supporting gun ownership. Gun laws were tougher directly before and after he had power. Given what the war did to the economy, I am not sure very many people could afford guns anyway-my grandmother lived as a regular citizen during the time and it sounds like just getting enough food could be difficult at times. I am not against people owning guns, just bad arguments for them. I also disagree with people who argue about banning certain guns based on the recent shootings as I think management of mental health problems is the real issue. If the OP had argued for gun ownership based on the need for self protection as you have then I would have no problems with it as I actually agree that it is necessary sometimes.

[The20]

Old Blue Collar Joe

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.

Carrier battle group.

[God Emperor Akhenaton]

First off, if you ever bring Hitler or nazis into an argument, you lose. Secondly, Hitler actually relaxed the gun laws in Germany. Lastly, Hitler was not the epitome of evil. Republicans are.

[We Do Not Kneel]

Hitler also drank water. Are you going to not drink water now? He also ingested oxygen, good luck not breathing.

[Keltoi Samurai]

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.

right, and gun control in the US has largely been about keeping guns away, first from Negroes, then from poor people (which were disproportionately the aforementioned Negroes ), and now is everyone who can't afford proper armed security like the people passing laws have.

the message is clear, really, that only the Rich White Elite are to be protected. the rest of us can rot.

[Keltoi Samurai]

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.

your comment is bad, and you should feel bad.

therefore, you are wrong.

good day, sir!

[Major Lima Charlie]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Major Lima Charlie

Old Blue Collar Joe

Major Lima Charlie

Old Blue Collar Joe

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?

My messiah? Don't make me laugh.

And I don't have to speak out against gun control. It's a non-stance. I speak for what needs to be done. Mostly cultural education away from violence. Beyond closing the gun show loophole, I can't think of anything better or worse in regards to gun law.

My main fear now is the mental health prescriptions they're going to place on firearm ownership. I'm a diagnosed dysthymic. Odds are I'd be barred from firearm ownership. I'm not really cool with that.

And yes, I am well aware police don't have to protect you. And odds are if you're a member of a minority group (I'm white so I'd probably skate, mind you) the cops will be more than less than helpful. Attacking victims of crimes and whatnot.

[Major Lima Charlie]

Keltoi Samurai

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.

your comment is bad, and you should feel bad.

therefore, you are wrong.

good day, sir!

No. If a person, instead of providing a legitimate argument, provides a fallacy, the onus is on them, not the other members of debate, to provide a better argument.

Otherwise we have discussions like this with idiots who enjoy the sound of their keys clacking.

[We Do Not Kneel]

Keltoi Samurai

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.

your comment is bad, and you should feel bad.

therefore, you are wrong.

good day, sir!

he's right, though.

[Keltoi Samurai]

Major Lima Charlie

Keltoi Samurai

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.

your comment is bad, and you should feel bad.

therefore, you are wrong.

good day, sir!

No. If a person

I SAID GOOD DAY!

[Keltoi Samurai]

We Do Not Kneel

Keltoi Samurai

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.

your comment is bad, and you should feel bad.

therefore, you are wrong.

good day, sir!

he's right, though.

nope, used a fallacy, and is therefore wrong by own logic

[We Do Not Kneel]

Keltoi Samurai

We Do Not Kneel

Keltoi Samurai

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.

your comment is bad, and you should feel bad.

therefore, you are wrong.

good day, sir!

he's right, though.

nope, used a fallacy, and is therefore wrong by own logic

which one?

[Project 429]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Quote:

If P, then Q.
P is a fallacious argument.
Therefore, Q is false.

Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions, so this is an informal fallacy of relevance.

Not that the OP isn't still dumb as ********, though... It's just not wrong because it's dumb. It's simply dumb and also wrong.

[from blue to]

The20

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?

Is the US government trying to conquer the USA?

Already has. This is the occupation stage. Bow before your oppressors!

Not sure if I'm joking here. Let's just assume I am, or not, I don't care.