Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well said. The claim that guns could have stopped what happened in Germany is obviously ridiculous.
Wrong….the nazis came to power because anyone who was a political opponent was beaten and their business destroyed while the police did nothing. So as they were coming to power they taught normal people…who were unarmed, not to interfere with them or resist them….and then they came to power….and again, they used the gun registration records created and collected in the Weimar Republic to disarm their political enemies and the Jews……who they then sent to gas chambers.
Then, after they defeated the weak post World War 1 militaries of the rest of Europe, the civilian populations, being unarmed, were defenseless against the German occupation of their countries……..
Had normal German opponents of the nazis had guns, they nazis could not have intimidated their way to power. Had every country in Europe been like Switzerland, with over 435,000 armed civilians ready to fight against an invasion….the ability of the Germans to take and hold those countries would have been impossible…….and the death camps would not have happened.
No that is complete fantasy.
How could they take the guns before they were in power? You aren't even making sense. Hitler did not make any new gun restrictions. And obviously a few armed citizens weren't going to stop him. Your claims are ridiculous.
They didn't….the Weimar Republic began banning and confiscating gun and registering those left….the nazis ignored all those laws of course. Hitler used the gun registration records from the Weimar government to disarm the last gun owners and Jews to make sure only the nazis and their allies had guns.
And no…had there been wide spread gun ownership at our levels the nazis would never have been able to beat and murder their way to power. And they could never have held all that territory with hundreds of thousands of armed civilians dedicated to resisting them…..
We have armed barbarians in Iraq and Afghanistan with old rifles and improvised bombs…and we are leaving, even though we have the most advanced military in the world….
So sell that crap somewhere else….an armed population can resist…an unarmed population is at the mercy of the guys with the guns……even if they are the police and the army.
So they came to power with strong gun regulations already in place. And they ran over almost all the militaries of the world. Your claim is just silly. Armed civilians would not have stopped them and probably wouldn't have really tried.
Yes, read Gun Control in the 3rd Reich…it goes through the gun control measures meant to keep Germans safe after World War 1. And did you ever read history…….you don't believe the Germans ran over all the other militaries in Europe….and would have done the same to Russia if we hadn't jumped in…….
Armed civilians stop thugs from beating people and vandalizing and looting stores…..we saw this in the Black Lies Matter riots where civilians with guns kept their stores safe….and unarmed stores were burnt to the ground.
Kristalnacht would not have happened if there was wide spread gun ownership among the Jews and other Germans.
Lol, and just what did the Russian and Polish partisans do later on in World War 2, moron?You just have propaganda and no real facts. The nazis were very popular. No minority was going to stop them, armed or not. No civilians were going to stop their military. Do you know how many troops they killed? What happened was created by WW1, gun laws have nothing to do with it.
Well said. The claim that guns could have stopped what happened in Germany is obviously ridiculous.
Wrong….the nazis came to power because anyone who was a political opponent was beaten and their business destroyed while the police did nothing. So as they were coming to power they taught normal people…who were unarmed, not to interfere with them or resist them….and then they came to power….and again, they used the gun registration records created and collected in the Weimar Republic to disarm their political enemies and the Jews……who they then sent to gas chambers.
Then, after they defeated the weak post World War 1 militaries of the rest of Europe, the civilian populations, being unarmed, were defenseless against the German occupation of their countries……..
Had normal German opponents of the nazis had guns, they nazis could not have intimidated their way to power. Had every country in Europe been like Switzerland, with over 435,000 armed civilians ready to fight against an invasion….the ability of the Germans to take and hold those countries would have been impossible…….and the death camps would not have happened.
No that is complete fantasy.
How could they take the guns before they were in power? You aren't even making sense. Hitler did not make any new gun restrictions. And obviously a few armed citizens weren't going to stop him. Your claims are ridiculous.
They didn't….the Weimar Republic began banning and confiscating gun and registering those left….the nazis ignored all those laws of course. Hitler used the gun registration records from the Weimar government to disarm the last gun owners and Jews to make sure only the nazis and their allies had guns.
And no…had there been wide spread gun ownership at our levels the nazis would never have been able to beat and murder their way to power. And they could never have held all that territory with hundreds of thousands of armed civilians dedicated to resisting them…..
We have armed barbarians in Iraq and Afghanistan with old rifles and improvised bombs…and we are leaving, even though we have the most advanced military in the world….
So sell that crap somewhere else….an armed population can resist…an unarmed population is at the mercy of the guys with the guns……even if they are the police and the army.
So they came to power with strong gun regulations already in place. And they ran over almost all the militaries of the world. Your claim is just silly. Armed civilians would not have stopped them and probably wouldn't have really tried.
Yes, read Gun Control in the 3rd Reich…it goes through the gun control measures meant to keep Germans safe after World War 1. And did you ever read history…….you don't believe the Germans ran over all the other militaries in Europe….and would have done the same to Russia if we hadn't jumped in…….
Armed civilians stop thugs from beating people and vandalizing and looting stores…..we saw this in the Black Lies Matter riots where civilians with guns kept their stores safe….and unarmed stores were burnt to the ground.
Kristalnacht would not have happened if there was wide spread gun ownership among the Jews and other Germans.
Lol, and just what did the Russian and Polish partisans do later on in World War 2, moron?You just have propaganda and no real facts. The nazis were very popular. No minority was going to stop them, armed or not. No civilians were going to stop their military. Do you know how many troops they killed? What happened was created by WW1, gun laws have nothing to do with it.
THEY FOUGHT THE NAZI ARMY AND WON!
You libtards are so fucking stupid, it hurts to read you stupid ass bullshit.
Yes eventually the nazis were defeated by the combination of many armies. But a small armed minority in Germany would have made no difference.
Yes eventually the nazis were defeated by the combination of many armies. But a small armed minority in Germany would have made no difference.
Sure it would have, just like it DID in Ireland under the tactics of Michael Collins.
Michael Collins (Irish leader) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just like it did work for the Mexican population when their socialist government tried to strip their Catholicism from them.
Cristero War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to mention of course the American Revolution itself, doofus.
Let's talk something modern.
How about Yemen? They are third in the world in guns per capita. Seems their gun wielding militia types put them into chaos and war.
And from my link about our revolution:
The idea that militias are the bulwark against tyranny typically begins in a faulty reading of American History. The Revolutionary War was not won by Militias, but rather the Continental Army with considerable help from the French. While it is probably an exaggeration to suggest that the Militia was completely worthless during the War, that is far closer to reality than the myth promulgated by some pro-gun advocates. And the Militias that did significantly contribute to the cause were organized by the states and represented a well-disciplined, cohesive fighting force that mirrored the Continental Army, not the minutemen of lore.
Let's talk something modern.
Ireland and Mexico are modern, dude.
How about Yemen? They are third in the world in guns per capita. Seems their gun wielding militia types put them into chaos and war.
Yeah, you mean the chaos they have had SINCE OVERTHROWING THEIR GOVERNMENT WITH GUNS? That Yemen? roflmao
And from my link about our revolution:
The idea that militias are the bulwark against tyranny typically begins in a faulty reading of American History. The Revolutionary War was not won by Militias, but rather the Continental Army with considerable help from the French. While it is probably an exaggeration to suggest that the Militia was completely worthless during the War, that is far closer to reality than the myth promulgated by some pro-gun advocates. And the Militias that did significantly contribute to the cause were organized by the states and represented a well-disciplined, cohesive fighting force that mirrored the Continental Army, not the minutemen of lore.
Lol, American forces in battle were typicall 25% Continentals and 75% local militia, idiot and we won with that.
It was not until 1910 or so that the militia system was replaced with the National Guard system, a more formalized militia.
I dont have to link facts of the public domain, idiot.Let's talk something modern.
Ireland and Mexico are modern, dude.
How about Yemen? They are third in the world in guns per capita. Seems their gun wielding militia types put them into chaos and war.
Yeah, you mean the chaos they have had SINCE OVERTHROWING THEIR GOVERNMENT WITH GUNS? That Yemen? roflmao
And from my link about our revolution:
The idea that militias are the bulwark against tyranny typically begins in a faulty reading of American History. The Revolutionary War was not won by Militias, but rather the Continental Army with considerable help from the French. While it is probably an exaggeration to suggest that the Militia was completely worthless during the War, that is far closer to reality than the myth promulgated by some pro-gun advocates. And the Militias that did significantly contribute to the cause were organized by the states and represented a well-disciplined, cohesive fighting force that mirrored the Continental Army, not the minutemen of lore.
Lol, American forces in battle were typicall 25% Continentals and 75% local militia, idiot and we won with that.
It was not until 1910 or so that the militia system was replaced with the National Guard system, a more formalized militia.
Modern? Did they have cell phones? Were tv's even common? No your examples are not modern.
Yes that Yemen. See how well that is working out?
Link to support your claims?
I dont have to link facts of the public domain, idiot.Let's talk something modern.
Ireland and Mexico are modern, dude.
How about Yemen? They are third in the world in guns per capita. Seems their gun wielding militia types put them into chaos and war.
Yeah, you mean the chaos they have had SINCE OVERTHROWING THEIR GOVERNMENT WITH GUNS? That Yemen? roflmao
And from my link about our revolution:
The idea that militias are the bulwark against tyranny typically begins in a faulty reading of American History. The Revolutionary War was not won by Militias, but rather the Continental Army with considerable help from the French. While it is probably an exaggeration to suggest that the Militia was completely worthless during the War, that is far closer to reality than the myth promulgated by some pro-gun advocates. And the Militias that did significantly contribute to the cause were organized by the states and represented a well-disciplined, cohesive fighting force that mirrored the Continental Army, not the minutemen of lore.
Lol, American forces in battle were typicall 25% Continentals and 75% local militia, idiot and we won with that.
It was not until 1910 or so that the militia system was replaced with the National Guard system, a more formalized militia.
Modern? Did they have cell phones? Were tv's even common? No your examples are not modern.
Yes that Yemen. See how well that is working out?
Link to support your claims?
And the Modern Age started by 1500, so the examples are modern, ignoramus.
In late 1776 George Washington, discouraged by the way militiamen tended to run away at the sight of a British soldier, wrathfully informed the Congress: “If I were called upon to declare…whether the militia had been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole, I should subscribe to the latter.”I dont have to link facts of the public domain, idiot.Let's talk something modern.
Ireland and Mexico are modern, dude.
How about Yemen? They are third in the world in guns per capita. Seems their gun wielding militia types put them into chaos and war.
Yeah, you mean the chaos they have had SINCE OVERTHROWING THEIR GOVERNMENT WITH GUNS? That Yemen? roflmao
And from my link about our revolution:
The idea that militias are the bulwark against tyranny typically begins in a faulty reading of American History. The Revolutionary War was not won by Militias, but rather the Continental Army with considerable help from the French. While it is probably an exaggeration to suggest that the Militia was completely worthless during the War, that is far closer to reality than the myth promulgated by some pro-gun advocates. And the Militias that did significantly contribute to the cause were organized by the states and represented a well-disciplined, cohesive fighting force that mirrored the Continental Army, not the minutemen of lore.
Lol, American forces in battle were typicall 25% Continentals and 75% local militia, idiot and we won with that.
It was not until 1910 or so that the militia system was replaced with the National Guard system, a more formalized militia.
Modern? Did they have cell phones? Were tv's even common? No your examples are not modern.
Yes that Yemen. See how well that is working out?
Link to support your claims?
And the Modern Age started by 1500, so the examples are modern, ignoramus.
Yeah the elite left has no agenda when it comes to gun rights...if you believe that, you will believe anything.
Yep the elite left are all about good intentions.
CRAZY!!!
Soundbites that can't be proven are the MO of the anti-gun loon.Yeah, let's bring it all down to soundbites that can't be proved.
Another appeal to emotionI'm sure those parents of Sandy Hook kids and Columbine kids are 'elite'.
Of the anti-gun loon?And what is their agenda?
Further proof that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.At the end of the day most gun control advocates don't give a shit if gang bangers go around shooting each other. Good luck to them. The issue is the mass shootings. The randomness of them. People would like to go to the movies or school without having to worry about some loon with a chip of their shoulder shooting them because they've had a bad day.
Another appeal to emotion
.
To limit the exercise of the right to arms by law-abiding citizens as much as they possibly can.
You said:What is dishonest about what I said.Further proof that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.At the end of the day most gun control advocates don't give a shit if gang bangers go around shooting each other. Good luck to them. The issue is the mass shootings. The randomness of them. People would like to go to the movies or school without having to worry about some loon with a chip of their shoulder shooting them because they've had a bad day.
Who said that?You guys seem to have this wet dream that take out the black and latino murders all would be okay.
Red herring.And the whackjob that was Charlton Heston saying "out of my cold, dead hands" wasn't emotion?Another appeal to emotion
.
Ultimately? To make people dependent on the state for their security.Because....?To limit the exercise of the right to arms by law-abiding citizens as much as they possibly can.
You said:What is dishonest about what I said.Further proof that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.At the end of the day most gun control advocates don't give a shit if gang bangers go around shooting each other. Good luck to them. The issue is the mass shootings. The randomness of them. People would like to go to the movies or school without having to worry about some loon with a chip of their shoulder shooting them because they've had a bad day.
The issue is the mass shootings. The randomness of them. People would like to go to the movies or school without having to worry about some loon with a chip of their shoulder shooting them because they've had a bad day.
That is, you focus not on gun crime in general or where it is the worst, but gun crime that stirs emotion.
Thus, an appeal to emotion.
Further proof that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Who said that?You guys seem to have this wet dream that take out the black and latino murders all would be okay.
Exactly no one.
What did -I- say?
That blacks commit more murders than whites, and are WAY over-represented in the 'offender;' column; to reduce the number of murder committed by black to their proportion of the population, our murder rate would drop 37%.
But you.. YOU want to focus on 'mass shootings' - the rarest of all gun crimes - because you know you can play on emotions.
Red herring.
In offering it, you accept the veracity of the claim made.
Good of you.
Ultimately? To make people dependent on the state for their security.
