Hitler didn't kill 6 million Armed Jews

[Betwixt_Failure]

Michael Noire

Your statements are full of too many fallacies to enumerate, however, it is worth noting that Religion is most definitely at the core of Gun Control legislation. To claim it is not is the sign of willful ignorance. In fact, it is a symptom of Holocaust denial.

Excuse me, what?

Could you explain what part of his response was "Holocaust denial"?

[Betwixt_Failure]

And just as an aside:

Why does every one of these topics that brings up the Holocaust ignore the approximately 10 million people killed who were not Jews?

I just find it baffling.

[N3bu]

Well, I was wrong.

You can sink much lower it seems.

[Wendigo]

Mike's in that weird twilight zone where he could be a troll, but on the other hand, he could also just be nuts and a total a*****e.

[Michael Noire]

Wendigo

Mike's in that weird twilight zone where he could be a troll, but on the other hand, he could also just be nuts and a total a*****e.

Sometimes I say what I believe,
Sometimes what I believe needs to be said.

Not always the same, but sometimes if you want magenta and you begin with blue, you have to add red.

[Tina Bae]

[Leek Joyowza]

Michael Noire

Hitler killed 6 million disarmed Jews. Many of them had guns at one time, but were required by increasingly infringing legislation and later confiscations to turn them in. The laws created in Nazi Germany were designed to disarm a portion of the population so that that population could be controlled and exterminated.

According to P. Morgan, Britain has no guns whatsoever, not the citizens, not the police, and absolute total gun ban. Despite this, 30-40 people are killed every year by gun violence. Apparently even a total gun ban doesn't stop gun violence. As to the total aggregate violence, the numbers are not impressive. The European Union considers Britain to be one of the most violent members. Oddly enough, Switzerland has guns all over the place but their violent crime and even gun fatalities are relatively low.

Back to Hitler, we have this situation where people want to know what would happen if the Jews were armed. To that I would answer - they were surrounded by armed jack booted thugs and told to disarm or die. I would surmise from various movies that some of them fled the country while they could and contributed to some form of rebellion, some groups more effective than others. Point is, the Jews allowed themselves to be disarmed because they were already considered a hated minority. They thought that by not offering violent resistance they could demonstrate their sense of reason and cool, level heads would prevail. Then they were executed by firing squads and those that weren't were sent to death camps.

The first rule of People Quoting Godwin: Don't.
Godwin never fought in any war. Godwin never wondered what it would be like to lose his own rights, or have to march to his own death. Godwin isn't a leader, he isn't a soldier, and he isn't a holocaust victim. Godwin is a worthless piece of s**t that intentionally pushes people away from History, because Godwin wants you to forget, when you should Never forget.

The Jewish diaspora is a good analogy to random American with guns actually, because the two share in common the fact that having weapons would do nothing at all in saving them from a crack down from the powers that be around them. It might actually get them killed quicker in fact.

Quote:

Two separate conquerors in Pre Industrial Japan called for a Sword Hunt. Immediately following these events, there was great slaughter, temples were burned to the ground, and villages were sacked. People died by the hundreds of thousands, possibly by the millions. Entire religions were wiped out. Did peace follow? No. Edo/Tokyo continued to burn periodically, but what did follow in both cases was Tyranny unrivaled even by Orwellian Standards.

Citation on what the hell you're talking about in Japanese history here.

[Its A Crystal]

Michael Noire

Hitler killed 6 million disarmed Jews. Many of them had guns at one time, but were required by increasingly infringing legislation and later confiscations to turn them in. The laws created in Nazi Germany were designed to disarm a portion of the population so that that population could be controlled and exterminated.

According to P. Morgan, Britain has no guns whatsoever, not the citizens, not the police, and absolute total gun ban. Despite this, 30-40 people are killed every year by gun violence. Apparently even a total gun ban doesn't stop gun violence. As to the total aggregate violence, the numbers are not impressive. The European Union considers Britain to be one of the most violent members. Oddly enough, Switzerland has guns all over the place but their violent crime and even gun fatalities are relatively low.

Back to Hitler, we have this situation where people want to know what would happen if the Jews were armed. To that I would answer - they were surrounded by armed jack booted thugs and told to disarm or die. I would surmise from various movies that some of them fled the country while they could and contributed to some form of rebellion, some groups more effective than others. Point is, the Jews allowed themselves to be disarmed because they were already considered a hated minority. They thought that by not offering violent resistance they could demonstrate their sense of reason and cool, level heads would prevail. Then they were executed by firing squads and those that weren't were sent to death camps.

The first rule of People Quoting Godwin: Don't.
Godwin never fought in any war. Godwin never wondered what it would be like to lose his own rights, or have to march to his own death. Godwin isn't a leader, he isn't a soldier, and he isn't a holocaust victim. Godwin is a worthless piece of s**t that intentionally pushes people away from History, because Godwin wants you to forget, when you should Never forget.

Two separate conquerors in Pre Industrial Japan called for a Sword Hunt. Immediately following these events, there was great slaughter, temples were burned to the ground, and villages were sacked. People died by the hundreds of thousands, possibly by the millions. Entire religions were wiped out. Did peace follow? No. Edo/Tokyo continued to burn periodically, but what did follow in both cases was Tyranny unrivaled even by Orwellian Standards. A Person's whole family could be put to death because one of their family members wandered 1 city block away from their restricted residential zone. Most of you people have no ******** clue how bad it can get. Most of you think 'it can't happen here!, not in MY country!' You are Delusional. Someone should write a book about people like that, and call it The Godwin Delusion.

Because your pissy little assault rifle is going to fend off all of the tyrannical governments high tech, stealth strike drones, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, fighter jets, heavily armored tanks... Oh and did I fail to mention they have a WHOLE ******** LOT of those?

I love this wonderful dellusion you folks live in where, when the Government comes to get you, they are going to send a bunch of scrawny agents with six-shooters, not all their "Blow you right the ******** up before you even know you are under attack" hardware.

[God Emperor Akhenaton]

How about the 30 million armed people that were killed as a result of Naziism?

[Michael Noire]

God Emperor Akhenaton

How about the 30 million armed people that were killed as a result of Naziism?

Could you be more specific?

[God Emperor Akhenaton]

Michael Noire

God Emperor Akhenaton

How about the 30 million armed people that were killed as a result of Naziism?

Could you be more specific?

[Wendigo]

Michael Noire

God Emperor Akhenaton

How about the 30 million armed people that were killed as a result of Naziism?

Could you be more specific?

Well, there was this big, multilateral war that killed 2.5% of the world's population, for one thing.

[Michael Noire]

Wendigo

Michael Noire

God Emperor Akhenaton

How about the 30 million armed people that were killed as a result of Naziism?

Could you be more specific?

Well, there was this big, multilateral war that killed 2.5% of the world's population, for one thing.

Not specific enough. The fact that people were killed in war does not describe whether or not those people were appropriately capable of defending themselves. It also does not take into consideration whether those people were being marched to their deaths with threat of execution. If you are advocating laying down one's arms so that a tank may roll over and smear your intestines all over the streets, sorry, not going to agree with you. Ever.

[Wendigo]

Michael Noire

Not specific enough. The fact that people were killed in war does not describe whether or not those people were appropriately capable of defending themselves. It also does not take into consideration whether those people were being marched to their deaths with threat of execution. If you are advocating laying down one's arms so that a tank may roll over and smear your intestines all over the streets, sorry, not going to agree with you. Ever.

Seems like every time words come out of you, they constitute a straw man fallacy. I wonder whether it's contagious...

Anyway, since it's not strictly speaking an important referent, I'm just going to refer you to this guy:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/Casualties-Intro.html

Looks like there's a lot of detail there. Hell if I know or care whether it's properly researched. You can read through it and get back to me, though, if you want.

Since these are just for the US, of course, that's near zero civilians who just happened to live in a war zone, or under the thumb of a totalitarian regime.

[Michael Noire]

Wendigo

Michael Noire

Not specific enough. The fact that people were killed in war does not describe whether or not those people were appropriately capable of defending themselves. It also does not take into consideration whether those people were being marched to their deaths with threat of execution. If you are advocating laying down one's arms so that a tank may roll over and smear your intestines all over the streets, sorry, not going to agree with you. Ever.

Seems like every time words come out of you, they constitute a straw man fallacy. I wonder whether it's contagious...

Anyway, since it's not strictly speaking an important referent, I'm just going to refer you to this guy:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/Casualties-Intro.html

Looks like there's a lot of detail there. Hell if I know or care whether it's properly researched. You can read through it and get back to me, though, if you want.

Since these are just for the US, of course, that's near zero civilians who just happened to live in a war zone, or under the thumb of a totalitarian regime.

you are missing the bigger argument at hand. One of the main arguments in gun control today is that arms like AR-15s can't defend civilians against drones, jets, tanks, and bombs. The counter argument that many pro gun advocates make is that the weapons wielded by the revolutionary war had to be sufficient to fight against their enemies, so when people make the argument that the right to bear arms is about muskets, the reverse is that the British were also using muskets. The idea that in modern warfare, the people wouldn't need weapons compatible to modern militaries is argued against based on the logic that to resist effectively, a resisting force needs to have equipment capable to rivaling the enemy, not just capable of harming defenseless civilians or burglars.

So here's the basic point of any successful resistance movement. Sticks and stones don't stop tanks and bombs. Sticks and stones would be primitive even to the Colonists of Washington's time. The point of arming a populous to defend themselves is best represented in Israel and Cuba. Cuba is tiny, but heavily defended and armed. Israel is tiny but has had to defend itself with military grade technology on multiple occasions.

A stick is generally better than a bare fist, and a rifle is better than a stick, but hey, if you had a LAW rocket, machine gun, or Tank, to defend your people, all the better. My point is something is better than nothing, but when you talk about people getting slaughtered, it's generally because of disproportionate arms qualities on one side or the other. War is hell, and people die in war, and bombs kill indiscriminately. But the important thing to keep in mind is war becomes wholesale slaughter when one side is unable to defend itself against the forces that oppose it. Number is not so important as quality, and equality of arms isn't a numerical balance, as asymmetric warfare in the Middle East can attest.