Explain this. This guy shoots a Firefighter during the attempt to murder someone else....released in less than 3 years, gets illegal gun, again.

[2aguy]

The Mises Institute is a Neo-Confederate institute that if you recall, had the member Jeff Deist gave a speech in which he used Nazi terminology "blood and soil". The Mises Institute has also been called a "sales funnel for the White Nationalist branch of the alt-right".

You didnt think I'd look up any of your sources? Imagine that. Nazi's defending Nazi's. Good to know you're evidently one of them because seemingly you're eating their shit up.

Blow it out your ass…… you cant deny nazis are socialists so you play that game. Now tell us Hayek was a member of the klan, want to try that too?

 

[2aguy]

Yet in Europe they have gone laws that are even more restrictive and they seemingly work.

So because people are going to break the law anyway, laws are just useless I guess. Is that your premise?

I gave you story after story of British gun laws not working and you pretend they dont exist. I gave you stories of the British police stating they cant stop the flood….the flood, of illegal guns onto their island….an island.

 

[2aguy]

I'm sure those were lovely anecdotes. What if her attackers had guns instead of bats and she pulled a gun on them? Probably wouldnt be around to tell that story, now would she? See I can do the hypothetical/anecdotal thing as well.

What you dont realize is I've been held up at gunpoint by two robbers myself. Fortunately, I didnt have a gun or I probably wouldnt be sitting here typing this now. And to this day I still dont own a gun or feel the need to own a gun. So they took my credit cards and bank cards and used them. So what? I got all my money reimbursed. You, on the other hand, would probably pull out your weapon in that situation with the odds against you, thinking you can take out 2 armed people at the same time, just like they do it in the movies, right? LOL!

The fundamental difference between you and me is you would rather live in a society where everyone is armed at all times and there continues to be violent crime where as I'd rather live in a society where we figure out solutions to limit violent crime and reduce the amount of guns in our society. I'm never going to convince you of my position, and you sure as hell arent going to convince me of yours.

So dipshit. Women rapes and murdered is what you prefer…..good to know…..odds are after raping and murdering these women they would take their cash and credit cards
Too

 

[john doe 101]

Hey genius, it wouldnt matter. She would still have had her gun to shoot back. When faces with armed victims criminals tend to run, not fight, especially when bullets can hit them too.

Hopefully, you'll have that same thought process when you encounter that same situation.

you didnt answer the question. Do you take their guns and let them get raped and murdered?
Answer that question.

I dont take orders from Nazi scum, boy.

 

[2aguy]

I'm sure those were lovely anecdotes. What if her attackers had guns instead of bats and she pulled a gun on them? Probably wouldnt be around to tell that story, now would she? See I can do the hypothetical/anecdotal thing as well.

What you dont realize is I've been held up at gunpoint by two robbers myself. Fortunately, I didnt have a gun or I probably wouldnt be sitting here typing this now. And to this day I still dont own a gun or feel the need to own a gun. So they took my credit cards and bank cards and used them. So what? I got all my money reimbursed. You, on the other hand, would probably pull out your weapon in that situation with the odds against you, thinking you can take out 2 armed people at the same time, just like they do it in the movies, right? LOL!

The fundamental difference between you and me is you would rather live in a society where everyone is armed at all times and there continues to be violent crime where as I'd rather live in a society where we figure out solutions to limit violent crime and reduce the amount of guns in our society. I'm never going to convince you of my position, and you sure as hell arent going to convince me of yours.

Europe is now experiencing immigrant gangs gunning up to protect their new drug turf…..France, Sweden……fully automatic military rifle are the weapon of choice…. Your theories do not hold…….

 

[2aguy]

Hopefully, you'll have that same thought process when you encounter that same situation.


I dont take orders from Nazi scum, boy.

You guys really are a moron….typical anti-gun asshat…. You think criminals care care about what you want.

 

[john doe 101]

Blow it out your ass…… you cant deny nazis are socialists so you play that game. Now tell us Hayek was a member of the klan, want to try that too?

Nazism, socialism, and history​

From January 30, 1933, to May 2, 1945, Germany was under the control of the National Socialist German Workers Party (in German, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei — Nazi for short). Founded in 1920, the Nazi Party steadily gained power within German electoral politics, leading to then-President Paul von Hindenberg appointing Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany in 1933. (Counter to some popular beliefs, Hitler was never “elected” either chancellor or to his ultimate role as führer.)

Nazism arose in a very specific — and very German — political environment. To begin with, Germany had a long history of socialist and Marxist political organizing even before the First World War, which launched in 1914. (So no, Rep. Brooks, the Nazi Party was not the “socialist” party of Germany — that would have been the Social Democratic Party, or perhaps the Communist Party of Germany.)

And following the end of the First World War — and more importantly, Germany’s loss in the war and, thus, the end of the German empire — German politics became incredibly contentious, even deadly. Communists and Freikorps — World War One veterans who became a right-wing militia of sorts during the 1920s — at times even battled in the streets. In 1919, for example, 15,000 Germans died in nine days of fighting between left-wing groups and right-wing groups on the streets of Berlin.

Into that environment stepped Adolf Hitler, a failed artist from Braunau am Inn, Austria, who recognized the unique vulnerabilities of not just the German political system but the German populace itself, a populace that had just lost 19 percent of its male population to the war and was still enduring massive food shortages nationwide. He joined what was then called the German Workers Party (DAP) in 1919. The party renamed itself the NSDAP in 1920, and Hitler became party chairman in 1921.

But despite joining what would be called the “National Socialist” German workers party, Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. Far from it. In fact, in July 1921, Hitler briefly left the NSDAP because an affiliate of the party in Augsburg signed an agreement with the German Socialist Party in that city, only returning when he had been largely given control of the party itself.

Whatever interest Hitler had in socialism was not based on an understanding of socialism that we might have today — a movement that would supplant capitalism in which the working class would seize power over the state and the means of production. He repeatedly pushed back efforts by economically left-leaning elements of the party to enact socialist reforms, saying in a 1926 conference in Bamberg (organized by Nazi Party leaders over the very question of the party’s ideological underpinnings) that any effort to take the homes and estates of German princes would move the party toward communism and that he would never do anything to assist “communist-inspired movements.” He prohibited the formation of Nazi trade unions, and by 1929 he outright rejected any efforts by Nazis who argued in favor of socialistic ideas or projects in their entirety.

Joseph Goebbels, who would eventually become Reich Minister of Propaganda once the Nazi Party seized control of Germany, wrote in his diary about Hitler’s rejection of socialism at that 1926 meeting, “I feel as if someone had knocked me on the head ... my heart aches so much. ... A horrible night! Surely one of the greatest disappointments of my life.”

Rather, Hitler viewed socialism as a political organizing mechanism for the German people more broadly: a way of creating a “people’s community” — the volksgemeinschaft — that would bring everyday Germans (and businesspeople) together not based on their class but on their race and ethnicity. Thus, he would use the unifying aspects of “National Socialism” to get everyday Germans on board with the Nazi program while simultaneously negotiating with powerful businesses and the Junkers, industrialists and nobility, who would ultimately help Hitler gain total power over the German state.

What Hitler actually thought about “socialism”​

The best example of Hitler’s own views on socialism are evident in a debate he had over two days in May 1930 with then-party member Otto Strasser. Strasser and his brother Gregor, who was an avowed socialist of sorts, were a part of the Nazi Party’s left wing, arguing in favor of political socialism as an essential ingredient in Nazism.

But Hitler did not agree. When Strasser argues for “revolutionary socialism,” Hitler dismisses the idea, arguing that workers are too simple to ever understand socialism:

“Your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.”

And when Strasser calls for the return of 41 percent of private property to the state and dismisses the role of private property in an industrialized economy, Hitler tells him that will not only ruin “the entire nation” but also “end all progress of humanity.”

In fact, Hitler dismisses even the idea of challenging the status of capitalism, telling Strasser that his socialism is actually Marxism and making the argument that powerful businessmen were powerful because they were evolutionarily superior to their employees. Thus, Hitler argues, a “workers council” taking charge of a company would only get in the way.

“Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”

Strasser then asks him directly what he would do with powerful steel and arms manufacturer Krupp, known today as ThyssenKrupp. Would Hitler permit the company to stay as big and powerful as it was in 1930?

“Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.”

In this debate, Hitler isn’t making the case for socialism, much to Strasser’s dismay. He is making the case for fascism — in his view, not just an ideal system to organize government, but the only real option. “A system that rests on anything other than authority downwards and responsibility upwards cannot really make decisions,” he tells Strasser.

“Fascism offers us a model that we can absolutely replicate! As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights, the state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger.”

The concept of the “people’s community” undergirded much of the National Socialist project. Much like the basic idea of fascism, a word that stems from the Italian word for a bundle of rods tied together tightly, National Socialism was intended to tie Germany together under one leader — Hitler, the führer — with “subversive elements” like Jews, LGBT people, Roma, and, yes, socialists and Communists, removed by force.

In a 1923 interview with pro-Nazi writer George Sylvester Viereck, Hitler said, “In my scheme of the German state, there will be no room for the alien, no use for the wastrel, for the usurer or speculator, or anyone incapable of productive work.”

In Hitler’s version of National Socialism, socialism was “Aryan” and focused on the “commonwealth” of everyday Germans — a group of people he unites as one based entirely on their race. In that same interview with Viereck, Hitler added:

“Socialism is the science of dealing with the common wealth. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic... We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.”

Both Otto Strasser and his brother Gregor paid the price for challenging Hitler and advocating for socialism within the Nazi party. Gregor was murdered during the Night of Long Knives in 1934, a mass purge of the left wing of the Nazi Party in which between 85 and 200 people were killed as part of an effort, in Hitler’s words, to prevent a “socialist revolution.” Otto Strasser fled Germany, ultimately seeking refuge in Canada.

Nazism wasn’t a socialist project. Nazism was a rejection of the basic tenets of socialism entirely, in favor of a state built on race and racial classifications.

On “the big lie” and Mein Kampf​

It’s that fact that those who attempt to arbiter (whether in good faith or in very, very bad faith) the socialist bona fides of the Nazi Party program seem to forget: Hitler’s politics were based on a foundation of racism and anti-Semitism, first and foremost. He would then combine that with his belief in the führerprinzip — the “leader principle” — which held that one supreme leader (Hitler) was the ultimate authority and “supreme judge” over the German people. This was the backbone of the Nazi Party, one that would ultimately lead Nazi Germany on the road toward mass murder.


And that brings us to Rep. Brooks and his use of “the big lie” and why that was so problematic.

First and foremost, the term “big lie,” which Brooks (and many others) have used to describe propaganda generally, was used by Hitler to refer to a very specific “lie.” In Mein Kampf, Hitler’s 1925 autobiography-cum-manifesto, he lays out that supposed myth: that Germany’s loss in the First World War was due to military failures, specifically of Erich Ludendorff, who served as quartermaster general of the German Army, and not to the influence of Jews. This is a reference to the “stab-in-the-back” myth that argued “subversive” elements (namely Jews) had been responsible for Germany’s loss in World War I, by “stabbing” German soldiers fighting in France and elsewhere “in the back” with treacherous machinations on the home front.

In fact, just a few lines up from the section Brooks quoted, Hitler writes on the real enemy who perpetuated the big lie:

“But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame.”

It is impossible to extricate Hitler’s understanding of the idea of the “big lie” — a propaganda technique which argues that telling people “colossal untruths,” in Hitler’s words, is more effective than using small lies — from his argument that Jews are not only behind the “big lie” about Ludendorff, but that they are themselves a “big lie.”

From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what a race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and exactly true. He called the Jew “The Great Master of Lies”. Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth to prevail.

(It’s also worth remembering that Mein Kampf, like all manifestos, was written with the intent of being shared widely, and is not a diary of Hitler’s innermost thinking.)

So Hitler wasn’t making an argument about American politics when he coined the term “the big lie.” He was making an argument about Jews, one that argued “international Jewry” was responsible for the failures of the First World War, and one that would ultimately lead to the horrors of the Holocaust.

Nazism was a real political entity, not a political cudgel​

No American political party can be compared to the Nazi Party that controlled Germany for 12 years. Nazism has no American corollary. American liberalism is not at all like Nazism, and neither, for that matter, is American conservatism. Nazism arose in Germany, gained power in Germany, held power in Germany, and would ultimately fall at the end of the Second World War in Germany.

Nazism aligned itself with industrialists and corporations that would ultimately utilize Nazi slave laborers and patent the chemicals used in Nazi death camps to kill millions of men, women, and children. The word “socialist” doesn’t change that, just as the word “Democratic” does not make the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — North Korea — a democracy.

So no, Hitler wasn’t a socialist. Nazism wasn’t a socialist project. And comparing American Democrats to Nazis is not just incorrect, but wrong, just as it is when American Democrats and liberals directly compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. Nazism was a political project built on anti-Semitism, racism, and dictatorial verve, one that took place in a specific country and at a specific moment in history. We forget that fact at our own risk.

 

[john doe 101]

Europe is now experiencing immigrant gangs gunning up to protect their new drug turf…..France, Sweden……fully automatic military rifle are the weapon of choice…. Your theories do not hold…….

Annnnnnnd their gun laws are changing how?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm sure those were lovely anecdotes. What if her attackers had guns instead of bats and she pulled a gun on them? Probably wouldnt be around to tell that story, now would she? See I can do the hypothetical/anecdotal thing as well.

What you dont realize is I've been held up at gunpoint by two robbers myself. Fortunately, I didnt have a gun or I probably wouldnt be sitting here typing this now. And to this day I still dont own a gun or feel the need to own a gun. So they took my credit cards and bank cards and used them. So what? I got all my money reimbursed. You, on the other hand, would probably pull out your weapon in that situation with the odds against you, thinking you can take out 2 armed people at the same time, just like they do it in the movies, right? LOL!

The fundamental difference between you and me is you would rather live in a society where everyone is armed at all times and there continues to be violent crime where as I'd rather live in a society where we figure out solutions to limit violent crime and reduce the amount of guns in our society. I'm never going to convince you of my position, and you sure as hell arent going to convince me of yours.

The reason a lot of people are safer from crime today is because we do have the legal ability to carry a firearm.

Years ago when CCW's were introduced in our state, we had a discussion about it in a local blog. A guy asked me why I wanted to see the law passed. I told him my elderly mother never drove in her life, and she walks everywhere she goes. The neighborhood is getting worse, and I'd like to see her with a little protection. So he asked me if the law was passed, would my elderly mother start carrying a gun when she walked? To that I replied no she wouldn't, but the criminal doesn't know that.

Mass murderers carefully choose Gun Free zones when planning their crime in many cases. Occupied home robberies are also planned out, It's usually older or disabled people not likely to be armed that are the victims. For those who don't take the time for that planning, they usually end up wounded or dead from one of the occupants of the house.

 

[2aguy]

Nazism, socialism, and history​

From January 30, 1933, to May 2, 1945, Germany was under the control of the National Socialist German Workers Party (in German, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei — Nazi for short). Founded in 1920, the Nazi Party steadily gained power within German electoral politics, leading to then-President Paul von Hindenberg appointing Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany in 1933. (Counter to some popular beliefs, Hitler was never “elected” either chancellor or to his ultimate role as führer.)

Nazism arose in a very specific — and very German — political environment. To begin with, Germany had a long history of socialist and Marxist political organizing even before the First World War, which launched in 1914. (So no, Rep. Brooks, the Nazi Party was not the “socialist” party of Germany — that would have been the Social Democratic Party, or perhaps the Communist Party of Germany.)

And following the end of the First World War — and more importantly, Germany’s loss in the war and, thus, the end of the German empire — German politics became incredibly contentious, even deadly. Communists and Freikorps — World War One veterans who became a right-wing militia of sorts during the 1920s — at times even battled in the streets. In 1919, for example, 15,000 Germans died in nine days of fighting between left-wing groups and right-wing groups on the streets of Berlin.

Into that environment stepped Adolf Hitler, a failed artist from Braunau am Inn, Austria, who recognized the unique vulnerabilities of not just the German political system but the German populace itself, a populace that had just lost 19 percent of its male population to the war and was still enduring massive food shortages nationwide. He joined what was then called the German Workers Party (DAP) in 1919. The party renamed itself the NSDAP in 1920, and Hitler became party chairman in 1921.

But despite joining what would be called the “National Socialist” German workers party, Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. Far from it. In fact, in July 1921, Hitler briefly left the NSDAP because an affiliate of the party in Augsburg signed an agreement with the German Socialist Party in that city, only returning when he had been largely given control of the party itself.

Whatever interest Hitler had in socialism was not based on an understanding of socialism that we might have today — a movement that would supplant capitalism in which the working class would seize power over the state and the means of production. He repeatedly pushed back efforts by economically left-leaning elements of the party to enact socialist reforms, saying in a 1926 conference in Bamberg (organized by Nazi Party leaders over the very question of the party’s ideological underpinnings) that any effort to take the homes and estates of German princes would move the party toward communism and that he would never do anything to assist “communist-inspired movements.” He prohibited the formation of Nazi trade unions, and by 1929 he outright rejected any efforts by Nazis who argued in favor of socialistic ideas or projects in their entirety.

Joseph Goebbels, who would eventually become Reich Minister of Propaganda once the Nazi Party seized control of Germany, wrote in his diary about Hitler’s rejection of socialism at that 1926 meeting, “I feel as if someone had knocked me on the head ... my heart aches so much. ... A horrible night! Surely one of the greatest disappointments of my life.”

Rather, Hitler viewed socialism as a political organizing mechanism for the German people more broadly: a way of creating a “people’s community” — the volksgemeinschaft — that would bring everyday Germans (and businesspeople) together not based on their class but on their race and ethnicity. Thus, he would use the unifying aspects of “National Socialism” to get everyday Germans on board with the Nazi program while simultaneously negotiating with powerful businesses and the Junkers, industrialists and nobility, who would ultimately help Hitler gain total power over the German state.

What Hitler actually thought about “socialism”​

The best example of Hitler’s own views on socialism are evident in a debate he had over two days in May 1930 with then-party member Otto Strasser. Strasser and his brother Gregor, who was an avowed socialist of sorts, were a part of the Nazi Party’s left wing, arguing in favor of political socialism as an essential ingredient in Nazism.

But Hitler did not agree. When Strasser argues for “revolutionary socialism,” Hitler dismisses the idea, arguing that workers are too simple to ever understand socialism:


And when Strasser calls for the return of 41 percent of private property to the state and dismisses the role of private property in an industrialized economy, Hitler tells him that will not only ruin “the entire nation” but also “end all progress of humanity.”

In fact, Hitler dismisses even the idea of challenging the status of capitalism, telling Strasser that his socialism is actually Marxism and making the argument that powerful businessmen were powerful because they were evolutionarily superior to their employees. Thus, Hitler argues, a “workers council” taking charge of a company would only get in the way.


Strasser then asks him directly what he would do with powerful steel and arms manufacturer Krupp, known today as ThyssenKrupp. Would Hitler permit the company to stay as big and powerful as it was in 1930?


In this debate, Hitler isn’t making the case for socialism, much to Strasser’s dismay. He is making the case for fascism — in his view, not just an ideal system to organize government, but the only real option. “A system that rests on anything other than authority downwards and responsibility upwards cannot really make decisions,” he tells Strasser.


The concept of the “people’s community” undergirded much of the National Socialist project. Much like the basic idea of fascism, a word that stems from the Italian word for a bundle of rods tied together tightly, National Socialism was intended to tie Germany together under one leader — Hitler, the führer — with “subversive elements” like Jews, LGBT people, Roma, and, yes, socialists and Communists, removed by force.

In a 1923 interview with pro-Nazi writer George Sylvester Viereck, Hitler said, “In my scheme of the German state, there will be no room for the alien, no use for the wastrel, for the usurer or speculator, or anyone incapable of productive work.”

In Hitler’s version of National Socialism, socialism was “Aryan” and focused on the “commonwealth” of everyday Germans — a group of people he unites as one based entirely on their race. In that same interview with Viereck, Hitler added:


Both Otto Strasser and his brother Gregor paid the price for challenging Hitler and advocating for socialism within the Nazi party. Gregor was murdered during the Night of Long Knives in 1934, a mass purge of the left wing of the Nazi Party in which between 85 and 200 people were killed as part of an effort, in Hitler’s words, to prevent a “socialist revolution.” Otto Strasser fled Germany, ultimately seeking refuge in Canada.

Nazism wasn’t a socialist project. Nazism was a rejection of the basic tenets of socialism entirely, in favor of a state built on race and racial classifications.

On “the big lie” and Mein Kampf​

It’s that fact that those who attempt to arbiter (whether in good faith or in very, very bad faith) the socialist bona fides of the Nazi Party program seem to forget: Hitler’s politics were based on a foundation of racism and anti-Semitism, first and foremost. He would then combine that with his belief in the führerprinzip — the “leader principle” — which held that one supreme leader (Hitler) was the ultimate authority and “supreme judge” over the German people. This was the backbone of the Nazi Party, one that would ultimately lead Nazi Germany on the road toward mass murder.


And that brings us to Rep. Brooks and his use of “the big lie” and why that was so problematic.

First and foremost, the term “big lie,” which Brooks (and many others) have used to describe propaganda generally, was used by Hitler to refer to a very specific “lie.” In Mein Kampf, Hitler’s 1925 autobiography-cum-manifesto, he lays out that supposed myth: that Germany’s loss in the First World War was due to military failures, specifically of Erich Ludendorff, who served as quartermaster general of the German Army, and not to the influence of Jews. This is a reference to the “stab-in-the-back” myth that argued “subversive” elements (namely Jews) had been responsible for Germany’s loss in World War I, by “stabbing” German soldiers fighting in France and elsewhere “in the back” with treacherous machinations on the home front.

In fact, just a few lines up from the section Brooks quoted, Hitler writes on the real enemy who perpetuated the big lie:


It is impossible to extricate Hitler’s understanding of the idea of the “big lie” — a propaganda technique which argues that telling people “colossal untruths,” in Hitler’s words, is more effective than using small lies — from his argument that Jews are not only behind the “big lie” about Ludendorff, but that they are themselves a “big lie.”


(It’s also worth remembering that Mein Kampf, like all manifestos, was written with the intent of being shared widely, and is not a diary of Hitler’s innermost thinking.)

So Hitler wasn’t making an argument about American politics when he coined the term “the big lie.” He was making an argument about Jews, one that argued “international Jewry” was responsible for the failures of the First World War, and one that would ultimately lead to the horrors of the Holocaust.

Nazism was a real political entity, not a political cudgel​

No American political party can be compared to the Nazi Party that controlled Germany for 12 years. Nazism has no American corollary. American liberalism is not at all like Nazism, and neither, for that matter, is American conservatism. Nazism arose in Germany, gained power in Germany, held power in Germany, and would ultimately fall at the end of the Second World War in Germany.

Nazism aligned itself with industrialists and corporations that would ultimately utilize Nazi slave laborers and patent the chemicals used in Nazi death camps to kill millions of men, women, and children. The word “socialist” doesn’t change that, just as the word “Democratic” does not make the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — North Korea — a democracy.

So no, Hitler wasn’t a socialist. Nazism wasn’t a socialist project. And comparing American Democrats to Nazis is not just incorrect, but wrong, just as it is when American Democrats and liberals directly compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. Nazism was a political project built on anti-Semitism, racism, and dictatorial verve, one that took place in a specific country and at a specific moment in history. We forget that fact at our own risk.

Moron....

Again.....

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.”

 

[2aguy]

Nazism, socialism, and history​

From January 30, 1933, to May 2, 1945, Germany was under the control of the National Socialist German Workers Party (in German, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei — Nazi for short). Founded in 1920, the Nazi Party steadily gained power within German electoral politics, leading to then-President Paul von Hindenberg appointing Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany in 1933. (Counter to some popular beliefs, Hitler was never “elected” either chancellor or to his ultimate role as führer.)

Nazism arose in a very specific — and very German — political environment. To begin with, Germany had a long history of socialist and Marxist political organizing even before the First World War, which launched in 1914. (So no, Rep. Brooks, the Nazi Party was not the “socialist” party of Germany — that would have been the Social Democratic Party, or perhaps the Communist Party of Germany.)

And following the end of the First World War — and more importantly, Germany’s loss in the war and, thus, the end of the German empire — German politics became incredibly contentious, even deadly. Communists and Freikorps — World War One veterans who became a right-wing militia of sorts during the 1920s — at times even battled in the streets. In 1919, for example, 15,000 Germans died in nine days of fighting between left-wing groups and right-wing groups on the streets of Berlin.

Into that environment stepped Adolf Hitler, a failed artist from Braunau am Inn, Austria, who recognized the unique vulnerabilities of not just the German political system but the German populace itself, a populace that had just lost 19 percent of its male population to the war and was still enduring massive food shortages nationwide. He joined what was then called the German Workers Party (DAP) in 1919. The party renamed itself the NSDAP in 1920, and Hitler became party chairman in 1921.

But despite joining what would be called the “National Socialist” German workers party, Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. Far from it. In fact, in July 1921, Hitler briefly left the NSDAP because an affiliate of the party in Augsburg signed an agreement with the German Socialist Party in that city, only returning when he had been largely given control of the party itself.

Whatever interest Hitler had in socialism was not based on an understanding of socialism that we might have today — a movement that would supplant capitalism in which the working class would seize power over the state and the means of production. He repeatedly pushed back efforts by economically left-leaning elements of the party to enact socialist reforms, saying in a 1926 conference in Bamberg (organized by Nazi Party leaders over the very question of the party’s ideological underpinnings) that any effort to take the homes and estates of German princes would move the party toward communism and that he would never do anything to assist “communist-inspired movements.” He prohibited the formation of Nazi trade unions, and by 1929 he outright rejected any efforts by Nazis who argued in favor of socialistic ideas or projects in their entirety.

Joseph Goebbels, who would eventually become Reich Minister of Propaganda once the Nazi Party seized control of Germany, wrote in his diary about Hitler’s rejection of socialism at that 1926 meeting, “I feel as if someone had knocked me on the head ... my heart aches so much. ... A horrible night! Surely one of the greatest disappointments of my life.”

Rather, Hitler viewed socialism as a political organizing mechanism for the German people more broadly: a way of creating a “people’s community” — the volksgemeinschaft — that would bring everyday Germans (and businesspeople) together not based on their class but on their race and ethnicity. Thus, he would use the unifying aspects of “National Socialism” to get everyday Germans on board with the Nazi program while simultaneously negotiating with powerful businesses and the Junkers, industrialists and nobility, who would ultimately help Hitler gain total power over the German state.

What Hitler actually thought about “socialism”​

The best example of Hitler’s own views on socialism are evident in a debate he had over two days in May 1930 with then-party member Otto Strasser. Strasser and his brother Gregor, who was an avowed socialist of sorts, were a part of the Nazi Party’s left wing, arguing in favor of political socialism as an essential ingredient in Nazism.

But Hitler did not agree. When Strasser argues for “revolutionary socialism,” Hitler dismisses the idea, arguing that workers are too simple to ever understand socialism:


And when Strasser calls for the return of 41 percent of private property to the state and dismisses the role of private property in an industrialized economy, Hitler tells him that will not only ruin “the entire nation” but also “end all progress of humanity.”

In fact, Hitler dismisses even the idea of challenging the status of capitalism, telling Strasser that his socialism is actually Marxism and making the argument that powerful businessmen were powerful because they were evolutionarily superior to their employees. Thus, Hitler argues, a “workers council” taking charge of a company would only get in the way.


Strasser then asks him directly what he would do with powerful steel and arms manufacturer Krupp, known today as ThyssenKrupp. Would Hitler permit the company to stay as big and powerful as it was in 1930?


In this debate, Hitler isn’t making the case for socialism, much to Strasser’s dismay. He is making the case for fascism — in his view, not just an ideal system to organize government, but the only real option. “A system that rests on anything other than authority downwards and responsibility upwards cannot really make decisions,” he tells Strasser.


The concept of the “people’s community” undergirded much of the National Socialist project. Much like the basic idea of fascism, a word that stems from the Italian word for a bundle of rods tied together tightly, National Socialism was intended to tie Germany together under one leader — Hitler, the führer — with “subversive elements” like Jews, LGBT people, Roma, and, yes, socialists and Communists, removed by force.

In a 1923 interview with pro-Nazi writer George Sylvester Viereck, Hitler said, “In my scheme of the German state, there will be no room for the alien, no use for the wastrel, for the usurer or speculator, or anyone incapable of productive work.”

In Hitler’s version of National Socialism, socialism was “Aryan” and focused on the “commonwealth” of everyday Germans — a group of people he unites as one based entirely on their race. In that same interview with Viereck, Hitler added:


Both Otto Strasser and his brother Gregor paid the price for challenging Hitler and advocating for socialism within the Nazi party. Gregor was murdered during the Night of Long Knives in 1934, a mass purge of the left wing of the Nazi Party in which between 85 and 200 people were killed as part of an effort, in Hitler’s words, to prevent a “socialist revolution.” Otto Strasser fled Germany, ultimately seeking refuge in Canada.

Nazism wasn’t a socialist project. Nazism was a rejection of the basic tenets of socialism entirely, in favor of a state built on race and racial classifications.

On “the big lie” and Mein Kampf​

It’s that fact that those who attempt to arbiter (whether in good faith or in very, very bad faith) the socialist bona fides of the Nazi Party program seem to forget: Hitler’s politics were based on a foundation of racism and anti-Semitism, first and foremost. He would then combine that with his belief in the führerprinzip — the “leader principle” — which held that one supreme leader (Hitler) was the ultimate authority and “supreme judge” over the German people. This was the backbone of the Nazi Party, one that would ultimately lead Nazi Germany on the road toward mass murder.


And that brings us to Rep. Brooks and his use of “the big lie” and why that was so problematic.

First and foremost, the term “big lie,” which Brooks (and many others) have used to describe propaganda generally, was used by Hitler to refer to a very specific “lie.” In Mein Kampf, Hitler’s 1925 autobiography-cum-manifesto, he lays out that supposed myth: that Germany’s loss in the First World War was due to military failures, specifically of Erich Ludendorff, who served as quartermaster general of the German Army, and not to the influence of Jews. This is a reference to the “stab-in-the-back” myth that argued “subversive” elements (namely Jews) had been responsible for Germany’s loss in World War I, by “stabbing” German soldiers fighting in France and elsewhere “in the back” with treacherous machinations on the home front.

In fact, just a few lines up from the section Brooks quoted, Hitler writes on the real enemy who perpetuated the big lie:


It is impossible to extricate Hitler’s understanding of the idea of the “big lie” — a propaganda technique which argues that telling people “colossal untruths,” in Hitler’s words, is more effective than using small lies — from his argument that Jews are not only behind the “big lie” about Ludendorff, but that they are themselves a “big lie.”


(It’s also worth remembering that Mein Kampf, like all manifestos, was written with the intent of being shared widely, and is not a diary of Hitler’s innermost thinking.)

So Hitler wasn’t making an argument about American politics when he coined the term “the big lie.” He was making an argument about Jews, one that argued “international Jewry” was responsible for the failures of the First World War, and one that would ultimately lead to the horrors of the Holocaust.

Nazism was a real political entity, not a political cudgel​

No American political party can be compared to the Nazi Party that controlled Germany for 12 years. Nazism has no American corollary. American liberalism is not at all like Nazism, and neither, for that matter, is American conservatism. Nazism arose in Germany, gained power in Germany, held power in Germany, and would ultimately fall at the end of the Second World War in Germany.

Nazism aligned itself with industrialists and corporations that would ultimately utilize Nazi slave laborers and patent the chemicals used in Nazi death camps to kill millions of men, women, and children. The word “socialist” doesn’t change that, just as the word “Democratic” does not make the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — North Korea — a democracy.

So no, Hitler wasn’t a socialist. Nazism wasn’t a socialist project. And comparing American Democrats to Nazis is not just incorrect, but wrong, just as it is when American Democrats and liberals directly compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. Nazism was a political project built on anti-Semitism, racism, and dictatorial verve, one that took place in a specific country and at a specific moment in history. We forget that fact at our own risk.

You posted nothing....feelings.....I posted actual actions of the socialists in German...

Your link simply points out what I stated.....national socialists only cared about Germany...they didn't care about socialism around the world...you doofus...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Years ago when CCW's were introduced in our state, we had a discussion about it in a local blog. A guy asked me why I wanted to see the law passed. I told him my elderly mother never drove in her life, and she walks everywhere she goes. The neighborhood is getting worse, and I'd like to see her with a little protection. So he asked me if the law was passed, would my elderly mother start carrying a gun when she walked? To that I replied no she wouldn't, but the criminal doesn't know that.

These assholes should be thanking us for actually taking the responsibility ourselves for their protection.

Otherwise, I want all these shits to put a sign in their yard saying that they have no guns and walk the street with a similar sign around their necks.

 

[2aguy]

Annnnnnnd their gun laws are changing how?

They aren't changing....the criminals are ignoring them.......

The immigrants now in charge of European drug trades don't care about European laws, culture or norms.......and they are far more willing to commit acts of violence than the wussy Europeans are...

Liverpool gangs 'dominate' gun and drugs trade outside London


Organised criminal gangs from Liverpool have risen to the summit of the UK underworld and “dominate” the firearms and drugs-trade outside London, the latest intelligence from senior officers at the National Crime Agency (NCA) reveals.
---
Analysis of encrypted messages from a communications system used by criminals has shown that the city has become the preeminent location for top-tier gangs sourcing high-volume importations of drugs and automatic weapons.
------

Analysis by the NFTC found that Merseyside and the broader north-west corridor was home to a network of gun factories converting low-calibre weapons such as the Czech-made Škorpion and Slovakian Grand Power into deadly automatic firearms.

Perfect said that converting weapons was seen by some in the region as a viable business.

A low-calibre Glock handgun bought for £135 in eastern Europe could be converted in just 90 seconds to a 9mm weapon that could be sold for up to £5,000.
-----
nalysis of the intelligence from EncroChat has revealed other surprises to firearms officers. Perfect said:

“If you’d asked me before Venetic what was the firearm of choice for an organised crime group, I’d have absolutely said the Glock handgun. Venetic showed that the Škorpion SMG and the Grand Power are now becoming that weapon of choice.”
Police struggle to stop flood of firearms into UK


Police and border officials are struggling to stop a rising supply of illegal firearms being smuggled into Britain, a senior police chief has warned.

Chief constable Andy Cooke, the national police lead for serious and organised crime, said law enforcement had seen an increased supply of guns over the past year, and feared that it would continue in 2019

The Guardian has learned that the situation is so serious that the National Crime Agency has taken the rare step of using its legal powers to direct every single police force to step up the fight against illegal guns.

The NCA has used tasking powers to direct greater intelligence about firearms to be gathered by all 43 forces in England and Wales.

Another senior law enforcement official said that “new and clean” weapons were now being used in the majority of shootings, as opposed to guns once being so difficult to obtain that they would be “rented out” to be used in multiple crimes.

Cooke, the Merseyside chief constable, told the Guardian: “We in law enforcement expect the rise in new firearms to continue. We are doing all we can. We are not in a position to stop it anytime soon.

“Law enforcement is more joined up now than before, but the scale of the problem is such that despite a number of excellent firearms seizures, I expect the rise in supply to be a continuing issue.”

The increasing supply of guns belies problems with UK border security and innovations by organised crime gangs. Smugglers have increasingly found new ways and innovative routes to get guns past border defences.


Cooke said that the dynamics of the streets of British cities had changed and that criminals were more willing to use guns: “If they bring them in people will buy them. It’s a kudos thing for organised criminals.”

Simon Brough, head of firearms at the NCA, said: “The majority of guns being used are new, clean firearms ... which indicates a relatively fluid supply.”

He said shotguns were 40% of the total, with an increase in burglaries to try and steal them.

Handguns are the next biggest category, most often smuggled in from overseas, with ferry ports such as Dover being a popular entry point into the UK for organised crime groups:

“We’re doing a lot to fight back against it,” Brough said, adding that compared to other European countries, the availability in the UK was relatively lower.
==========


Two shot dead on London's streets amid warnings 'fluid supply' of guns is increasingly difficult to control

The violence came as police warned that the “fluid supply” of gunswas becoming increasingly difficult to control, with gangs using new and innovative ways of smuggling them past border defences.
---

Simon Brough, head of firearms at the National Crime Agency (NCA), also warned that the “sheer volume” of firearms coming into the UK represented a “pernicious threat” that urgently needed to be addressed.

“The scale is really challenging, he told the Telegraph. “We are doing everything we can but criminals are operating in a lucrative business where they can be increasingly innovative and operate in a highly effective way.”


Last week, an Irish man found with 60 firearms in his car in Dover, en route from Calais, admitted gun smuggling.

Robert Keogh, 37, was stopped on August 2 by Border Force officers who found the weapons concealed deep inside the vehicle’s bumper and both rear quarter panels.

The number of shootings has been on the rise since 2013 and has in part being linked to the 2,000 drug supply chains identified as part of the country lines network.

Mr Brough said hand guns were being smuggled through eastern Europe, across nexus points in Belgium and the Netherlands and then onwards into the UK.

“Some of the methods criminal groups are using are incredibly sophisticated, for example, they are built into the interior of vehicles,” he said.

“The challenge at the border is the sheer volume of the operation.

“When a gun is coming in as a fast parcel, how can we find that? It’s a needle in a haystack.”

Shotguns lawfully held are being diverted into the criminal market via burglaries while other weapons are purchased blank and then converted.

Mr Brough said there was a trend towards “new and clean” guns being used for the first time that did not link to previous crimes.


“The source of them and availability leads to incidents such as we’ve seen this weekend,” he added.
========


Crime will continue to rise until us bobbies are released from the shackles of the PC police

The national crime figures released this week confirmed what my colleagues and I have known for some time. Violent crime is out of control and criminals now see certain cities and towns across the country as places where they can act with impunity.

This is not just about gangland battles in the likes of Brixton or Tottenham. What we are facing is a national crisis, fast spreading across the provinces.

In the West Midlands, for example, we had a murder rate last year on a par with that of London. Gun crime in our region is running at similarly high levels and violent thugs in my area have developed a

 

[Dadoalex]

Most of the illegal guns are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. Straw buyers is what the FBI cites as the main source of illegal guns. As for stolen guns, they drive their vehicles through the windows of gun shops and take all they can before the police come.

So?

Gun transfers from law abiding responsible gun owners to criminals.

About time you recognized the reality.

 

[Dadoalex]

The responsibility lays with the guy who broke the fucking law and stole someone elses property..

What is it with you morons....you want to release violent gun criminals who actually do the crime and murder, and then you want to punish to the fullest extent of the law, the people who didn't break any laws...

You people are fucking insane....

"Stole?"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

MOST illegal guns are sold by the law abiding gun owner to the criminal.
Why else do you shitbrains oppose background searches?

 

[Dadoalex]

When you don't have a good argument, just make up something..........


Please show me where I or anyone else has ever said guns "magically" appear in criminal's hands.

I'll wait.


View attachment 552018

How then do criminals get guns?
You deny they come from law abiding gun owners
You deny they come from the gun manufacturers
The only other avenue is that the guns magically appear in the criminals hands.

If you have proof to the contrary then you are shooting your own argument in the mouth.

 

[AZrailwhale]

So where did the gun come from before being smuggled?

That's right sweetie. A law abiding gun owner.

Nope usually a corrupt South, Central American or Eastern European army.

So where did the gun come from before being smuggled?

That's right sweetie. A law abiding gun owner.

 

[DukeU]

How then do criminals get guns?

Any way they can, usually by stealing them.

You deny they come from law abiding gun owners

Proof?

You deny they come from the gun manufacturers

Again, proof?

All guns originally come from a manufacturer.

 

[2aguy]

So?

Gun transfers from law abiding responsible gun owners to criminals.

About time you recognized the reality.

Shithead.......that is a dumb ass point. Cars...where do stolen cars come from...from people who legally own them in the first place.....

When the democrat party prosecutors don't prosecute the people who straw buy or steal guns, then you have more gun crime...you idiot..

You shitheads want to punish normal people, while letting the most violent criminals out of jail...cause "feelz....."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So?

Gun transfers from law abiding responsible gun owners to criminals.

About time you recognized the reality.

Is that what you think. Another one making up facts they create in their heads.

Very few guns used in crime come from a law abiding citizen who sold them a gun outside of straw buyers. People who sell personal firearms often copy the buyers drivers license before concluding the sale.

If you'd like, I can post several sites of where illegal guns come from. You can't post anything to back up your false claims.