America without guns, what would really happen to us....

[Captain Caveman]

View attachment 858150

You Americans need to sit down with this sentence -

It's not "all" guns v "no" guns, it's guns with regulations.

You can have guns in Germany too.

 

[Weatherman2020]

No guns?
People disarmed by the filthy dems?
...it will be a party for clan 13!

View attachment 858126

Look at that white racist picking on that innocent black man who was just walking by.

 

[JoeB131]

You do understand, don't you, that there are huge tanks of gasoline just below the ground, at gas stations?

that's the point, they are underground. They are underground so they don't catch fire.

I admit that I do not know what safety measures are in place, or how effective there are, but you have to be pretty stupid to assume that a large fire just above those tanks does not pose a serious hazard to life and property.

You really don't know what the safety measures are, but you'll comment on them anyway? That's pretty stupid.

The thing is, Gas Stations are designed to be very safe so that sort of thing doesn't happen...

 

[Weatherman2020]

that's the point, they are underground. They are underground so they don't catch fire.



You really don't know what the safety measures are, but you'll comment on them anyway? That's pretty stupid.

The thing is, Gas Stations are designed to be very safe so that sort of thing doesn't happen...

 

[JoeB131]

View attachment 858200

Okay, so where was the flaming dumpster? The way those people are dressed, this doesn't even look like it happened in America.

 

[2aguy]

See, wanting guns to shoot others. That's the gun problem America has. So your question the other day, which you were baffled about was, "Do you want guns to shoot others?". And yet you confirm again, "Yes".

No....that isn't a problem you dumb ass......the people they want guns for are the violent criminals who rape, rob, murder, beat, and stab people......if criminals don't do that, Americans with guns don't use those guns......

Normal gun owners want to be left the fuck alone......the democrats keep releasing the most violent criminals over and over again....can you tell us why they keep doing that?

And another question you refuse to answer.....

If the hamas lovers in Britain decide to do their own Oct. 7...what will you do? Your cops don't have guns, you have tiny numbers of special police who have guns......so if they rampage, rape, torture and murder.....what will you do?

 

[JoeB131]

Normal gun owners want to be left the fuck alone......the democrats keep releasing the most violent criminals over and over again....can you tell us why they keep doing that?

because you wingnuts have filled the prisons to capacity and we can't lock up 1/3rd of the country that has a police record.

 

[AZrailwhale]

because you wingnuts have filled the prisons to capacity and we can't lock up 1/3rd of the country that has a police record.

We can certainly lock up all the violent criminals.

 

[2aguy]

We can certainly lock up all the violent criminals.

If we keep violent criminals locked up who will the democrats get to shoot and murder people so they can pass more gun control laws?

 

[JoeB131]

We can certainly lock up all the violent criminals.

Which ones?

Murderers? Absolutely. Although your average murderer only spends 13 years in prison.
Rapists? Sure. of course only 3% of rapists ever see the inside of a jail cell.
How about the guy who gets in a drunken fistfight in a bar? Then we are starting to fill those jails up.

 

[2aguy]

You Americans need to sit down with this sentence -

It's not "all" guns v "no" guns, it's guns with regulations.

You can have guns in Germany too.

Yeah….bring up Germany….

In the 1920s they began registering guns…..for the same reasons you give today…to make people safer…..then they began to ban and confiscate them…..and when the socialists took over, they disarmed their political enemies and Jews…….and after 19 years of gun control…..they began 6 years of mass murder against innocent, unarmed people across Europe….15-20 million men, women and children murdered……….

Yeah, we will keep our guns.

 

[candycorn]

Fact: This year we will have 10,000 gun murders and nobody herded into a boxcar. We're Armed.
Fact: Great Britain will have less than 100 gun murders and nobody herded into a box car. They're not armed.

Who is coming out ahead given those two facts?

 

[JoeB131]

In the 1920s they began registering guns…..for the same reasons you give today…to make people safer…..then they began to ban and confiscate them…..

Except... the Weimar Republic was never effective in "confiscating guns", and the Nazis rolled back the gun laws. the way the Nazis ended the violence in the streets was first purging their own ranks of guys like Ernst Roehm, who advocated violent revolution, and then taking out the Communists with the police and army.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

the way the Nazis ended the violence in the streets was first purging their own ranks of guys like Ernst Roehm, who advocated violent revolution, and then taking out the Communists with the police and army.

That's an odd take, bizarre even by your standards.

Roehm was the leader of the SA “brownshirts”, and among the victims of the “Night of the Long Knives”. The way the Nazis “stopped the violence” was to conduct a mass murder against a large group of its own loyal supporters. And, of course, as everyone knows, after that, Nazi Germany was peaceful and utopian, right?

 

[JoeB131]

That's an odd take, bizarre even by your standards.

Roehm was the leader of the SA “brownshirts”, and among the victims of the “Night of the Long Knives”. The way the Nazis “stopped the violence” was to conduct a mass murder against a large group of its own loyal supporters. And, of course, as everyone knows, after that, Nazi Germany was peaceful and utopian, right?

Obviously, you are ignorant of the history.

Short version, the NSDAP (National Socialist German Worker's Party) started off as a revolutionary socialist party but slowly moved to the right. Roehm was one of the guys who thought that overthrowing the government by violence was the path to power.

The reason WHY Hitler turned on Roehm (the closest thing that he had to a friend in the Nazi elite, the only guy who could call him Adolf to his face) was because the German Military and Industrial establishment were willing to tolerate Hitler as Chancellor in a coalition with the right-wing German National People's Party, but they wanted Roehm and the other revolutionaries gone.

And the thing was, after that, Germany expanded economically, recovered from the Great Depression and the troubles of the 1920s that made Grandpa Ludwig leave the country. If Hitler had died in 1939 before the war started, he'd probably have been remembered as Germany's greatest Chancellor. But he did start the war, and here we are.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Obviously, you are ignorant of the history.

Short version, the NSDAP (National Socialist German Worker's Party) started off as a revolutionary socialist party but slowly moved to the right. Roehm was one of the guys who thought that overthrowing the government by violence was the path to power.

The reason WHY Hitler turned on Roehm (the closest thing that he had to a friend in the Nazi elite, the only guy who could call him Adolf to his face) was because the German Military and Industrial establishment were willing to tolerate Hitler as Chancellor in a coalition with the right-wing German National People's Party, but they wanted Roehm and the other revolutionaries gone.

And the thing was, after that, Germany expanded economically, recovered from the Great Depression and the troubles of the 1920s that made Grandpa Ludwig leave the country. If Hitler had died in 1939 before the war started, he'd probably have been remembered as Germany's greatest Chancellor. But he did start the war, and here we are.

At least, by murdering Roehm, and the rest of the SA, Hitler did put a stop to all the violence in Nazi Germany, just like you said, right?

…the way the Nazis ended the violence in the streets was first purging their own ranks of guys like Ernst Roehm…

 

[JoeB131]

At least, by murdering Roehm, and the rest of the SA, Hitler did put a stop to all the violence in Nazi Germany, just like you said, right?

Well, yes, in that civil order was restored. You'd have probably been happy there.

 

[2aguy]

Fact: This year we will have 10,000 gun murders and nobody herded into a boxcar. We're Armed.
Fact: Great Britain will have less than 100 gun murders and nobody herded into a box car. They're not armed.

Who is coming out ahead given those two facts?

In 6 years the socialists in Germany murdered 15-20 million innocent men, women and children, 19 years after they began to register, ban and confiscate guns.

 

[2aguy]

Obviously, you are ignorant of the history.

Short version, the NSDAP (National Socialist German Worker's Party) started off as a revolutionary socialist party but slowly moved to the right. Roehm was one of the guys who thought that overthrowing the government by violence was the path to power.

The reason WHY Hitler turned on Roehm (the closest thing that he had to a friend in the Nazi elite, the only guy who could call him Adolf to his face) was because the German Military and Industrial establishment were willing to tolerate Hitler as Chancellor in a coalition with the right-wing German National People's Party, but they wanted Roehm and the other revolutionaries gone.

And the thing was, after that, Germany expanded economically, recovered from the Great Depression and the troubles of the 1920s that made Grandpa Ludwig leave the country. If Hitler had died in 1939 before the war started, he'd probably have been remembered as Germany's greatest Chancellor. But he did start the war, and here we are.

They never moved to the right, they were leftists till the end.....

Nazism is Socialism -- F A Hayek, et al

One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too -as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment -have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because -and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany – many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience. But, in spite of this, the German entrepreneur class have manifested almost incredible short-sightedness in allying themselves with a move movement of whose strong anti-capitalistic tendencies there should never have been any doubt.

A careful observer must always have been aware that the opposition of the Nazis to the established socialist parties, which gained them the sympathy of the entrepreneur, was only to a very small extend directed against their economic policy. What the Nazis mainly objected to was their internationalism and all the aspects of their cultural programme which were still influenced by liberal ideas. But the accusations against the social-democrats and the communists which were most effective in their propaganda were not so much directed against their programme as against their supposed practice -their corruption and nepotism, and even their alleged alliance with “the golden International of Jewish Capitalism.”

It would, indeed, hardly have been possible for the Nationalists to advance fundamental objections to the economic policy of the other socialist parties when their own published programme differed from these only in that its socialism was much cruder and less rational. The famous 25 points drawn up by Herr Feder,[2] one of Hitler’s early allies, repeatedly endorsed by Hitler and recognized by the by-laws of the National-Socialist party as the immutable basis of all its actions, which together with an extensive commentary is circulating throughout Germany in many hundreds of thousands of copies, is full of ideas resembling those of the early socialists. But the dominant feature is a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic -individualistic profit seeking, large scale enterprise, banks, joint-stock companies, department stores, “international finance and loan capital,” the system of “interest slavery” in general; the abolition of these is described as the “[indecipherable] of the programme, around which everything else turns.” It was to this programme that the masses of the German people, who were already completely under the influence of collectivist ideas, responded so enthusiastically.

That this violent anti-capitalistic attack is genuine – and not a mere piece of propaganda – becomes as clear from the personal history of the intellectual leaders of the movement as from the general milieu from which it springs. It is not even denied that man of the young men who today play a prominent part in it have previously been communists or socialists. And to any observer of the literary tendencies which made the Germans intelligentsia ready to join the ranks of the new party, it must be clear that the common characteristic of all the politically influential writers – in many cases free from definite party affiliations – was their anti-liberal and anti-capitalist trend. Groups like that formed around the review “Die Tat” have made the phrase “the end of capitalism” an accepted dogma to most young Germans.[3]

And more...

The Myth of "Nazi Capitalism" | Chris Calton

German socialism, as Mises defines it, differs from what he called “socialism of the Russian pattern” in that “it, seemingly and nominally, maintains private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurship, and market exchange.” However, this is only a superficial system of private ownership because through a complete system of economic intervention and control, the entrepreneurial function of the property owners is completely controlled by the State. By this, Mises means that shop owners do not speculate about future events for the purpose of allocating resources in the pursuit of profits. Just like in the Soviet Union, this entrepreneurial speculation and resource allocation is done by a single entity, the State, and economic calculation is thus impossible.

“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.”
======

Nazis Were Not Marxists, but They Were Socialists | Jörg Guido Hülsmann

Nazis and marx..

Read A Pile Of Top Nazis Talking About How They Love Leftist Marxism

The Nazis were leftists. This statement is blasphemy to the academic-media complex, since everyone knows the Nazis were degenerate right-wingers fueled by toxic capitalism and racism. But evidence Adolf Hitler’s gang were men of the left, while debatable, is compelling.
The dispute on Nazi origins resurfaced through the confluence of brawling alt-right and antifa fringe movements and recent alternative histories by Dinesh D’Souza and others. The vitriol and lack of candor it produces from supposedly fact-driven academics and media is disturbing, if unsurprising. They stifle dissent on touchy subjects to maintain their narrative and enforce cultural hegemony.

However uncomfortable to opinion shapers, alternative views of the Third Reich exist and were written by the finest minds of their time. Opinions from the period perhaps carry more weight because they are unburdened by the aftermath of the uniquely heinous Nazi crimes.
------

Also, Adolf Hitler Loved Karl Marx
It wasn’t only theoretical. Hitler repeatedly praised Marx privately, stating he had “learned a great deal from Marxism.” The trouble with the Weimar Republic, he said, was that its politicians “had never even read Marx.” He also stated his differences with communists were that they were intellectual types passing out pamphlets, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun.”

It wasn’t just privately that Hitler’s fealty for Marx surfaced. In “Mein Kampf,” he states that without his racial insights National Socialism “would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground.” Nor did Hitler eschew this sentiment once reaching power. As late as 1941, with the war in bloom, he stated “basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same” in a speech published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Nazi propaganda minister and resident intellectual Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary that the Nazis would install “real socialism” after Russia’s defeat in the East. And Hitler favorite Albert Speer, the Nazi armaments minister whose memoir became an international bestseller, wrote that Hitler viewed Joseph Stalin as a kindred spirit, ensuring his prisoner of war son received good treatment, and even talked of keeping Stalin in power in a puppet government after Germany’s eventual triumph. His views on Great Britain’s Winston Churchill and the United States’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt were decidedly less kind.

Nazi and Communist Hatred of Each Other Was Brotherly
Despite this, there’s a persistent claim that Nazis and communists hated each other, and mention that the Nazis persecuted socialists and oppressed trade unions. These things are true, but prove little. The camps’ hatred stemmed from familiarity. It was internecine, the nastiest kind.

The Nazis and communists were not only in a struggle for street-war supremacy, but also recruits. These recruits were easily turned, because both sides were fighting for the same men. Hayek recalls
=========


Derek Hunter....

Hitler was a fascist, obviously, and a totalitarian. Somewhere along the line, these characteristics have become ascribed to the political right, or as they love to say nowadays, “The extreme right.” But it’s not true, not even close. There is no such thing as a “right-wing strongman.” Simply put, every single dictator is of the left. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Mussolini, Marcos, Chavez, Kim, Amin, and everyone else you can think of are people of the political left, plain and simple.

I know this cuts against everything you’ve heard in the media, and if you’re under 40, it probably goes against everything you were taught in school. But, to put it mildly, you were lied to.

First off, socialism, fascism, and communism are all very similar – they advocate different ways for the government to grow and “give” people things. Communists provided people with everything they deemed the people needed, for example, and everyone had to “contribute” by working for essentially slave wages. There was a thin veil of economic transactions, but the government all ultimately controlled them. Fascism and socialism are the same way, just slightly different methodologies
—————
So, now we get to the real point at which the argument is made about how all of these evil ideologies are of the left, and it’s pretty simple.

Progressive is the left, conservative is the right, OK? Progressives want a bigger government that does more, and with a bigger government doing more individual liberty necessarily shrinks. Conservatives want smaller government, limited by the Constitution, and more individual liberty.

It stands to reason that the further you go down the progressive direction, the bigger and stronger the government gets, just the opposite for the conservative side.

The natural end of the road for progressives is absolute power, a totalitarian regime imposing its will on the people, whether they like it or not. It’s a disaster, always, and the average person suffers greatly, but they suffer equally. It’s equity on display. Of course, that suffering never makes it to the top – as Soviet citizens starved, Stalin and his pals were fat. While North Koreans ate dirt, every leader in the Kim family was obese. It holds for almost all of them
————-
Now, the logical end for the conservative side of the horizon is anarchy. The further you go down the right, the smaller the government becomes and the more personal liberty there is. The end of that is no government at all, the opposite of the left.

But to hear the Democrat/MSNBC brain trust tell it, as you work your way down the right side, as government power shrinks, there is a magical point at which it somehow spikes back up to be all-powerful, and that’s where Hitler and every other of these monsters somehow lived. It doesn’t make any sense, but they also know people have been conditioned by a horrible left-wing public education system not to understand politics or history and to believe what they hear from “journalists” on TV, so it sticks.

It only sticks with stupid people, but there are enough of them to fuel a movement.
-----
The left, everywhere it exists in the world, demands obedience; they insist on conformity of thought. You wear whatever you want, screw whoever you want, but you’d better think only what is acceptable or else. It is the new slavery, and people don’t even realize it.
The public is too busy being told war is peace, crime is harmony, men are women, and more. That so many people swallow this insanity unquestioningly is a testament to just how far those cancerous ideologies have metastasized into our culture and how deeply we have to cut them out.

Democrats And The Hitler Lie

 

[Concerned American]

We'd be overrun by squirrels.

So what's different now? We have an over abundance of two-legged squirrels because there is no open season on them.