When The Public is Disarmed, This is What They Get Instead

[CrusaderFrank]

They have found a tunnel dug by hand at Ponar.

When you are disarmed by the government, digging your way out of death camps is your final state before they kill you, at least this is the result of such gun grabbing fascism in the 20th century.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/science/holocaust-ponar-tunnel-lithuania.html?_r=0

A team of archaeologists and mapmakers say they have uncovered a forgotten tunnel that 80 Jews dug largely by hand as they tried to escape from a Nazi extermination site in Lithuania about 70 years ago.

The Lithuanian site, Ponar, holds mass burial pits and graves where up to 100,000 people were killed and their bodies dumped or burned during the Holocaust.

Using radar and radio waves to scan beneath the ground, the researchers found the tunnel, a 100-foot passageway between five and nine feet below the surface, the team announced on Wednesday.

A previous attempt made by a different team in 2004 to find the underground structure had only located its mouth, which was subsequently left unmarked. The new finding traces the tunnel from entrance to exit and provides evidence to support survivor accounts of the harrowing effort to escape the holding pit.

Yes disarmed people all over Denmark are trying to dig out. Same with Japan and Germany and Australia. Such aweful places.

STFU you fucking Fascist Twat. You think it's funny? Please fuck off

 

[pismoe]

and see 'polpot' in Cambodia as he moved hundreds of thousands out of cities to be forced to farm and be tortured , maimed , beaten , and murdered Brian . All the murders by LEGAL governments are easily found by searching the internet Brian .

 

[Brain357]

And that's exactly why Israeli Jews are fully armed and ready to rumble today. The unarmed weak will always be dominated by the armed. It's why most Governments around the world have disarmed their Citizens. It's not that these Governments oppose guns. They just oppose their Citizens having them.

Israel has strong gun control.

Israelis are armed and ready to rumble. They're required to serve in the military. They're trained and prepared to defend. They have no choice. It's either that, or be exterminated. They learned that from the Nazi Holocaust. They'll never go quietly again.

Gun ownership is heavily regulated. Ownership is very low.

Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[pismoe]

see stalin in the ussr , see idi amin in Uganda . The history of the world is full of legal governments murdering their people Brian .

 

[Brain357]

You are probably noticing a common theme here. Pol Pot is the next figure cited, not because he introduced gun control but because he committed genocide. After much research I haven’t been able to find any evidence that the Khmer Rouge introduced any form of gun control or that it aided their rise to power. All I have come across is a host of sites mentioning 1956 without any evidence or citations. Seeing as the Khmer Rouge seized power in 1976, the relation with twenty year old legislation (if it even exists) is tenuous. Also the Khmer Rouge were resisted by not just civilians but also by the army of Cambodia which was far better armed than any civilian ever could be. After decades of constant warfare, it can hardly be claimed that the main problem in Indochina at the time was a lack of guns

The Genocide And Gun Control Myth

 

[Brain357]

see stalin in the ussr , see idi amin in Uganda . The history of the world is full of legal governments murdering their people Brian .

Let’s start with the first claimed example, that of the Soviet Union. Anyone who claims that an armed group of civilians could have stopped Stalin clearly has never opened a history book. First of all, the only reason the Bolsheviks were able to come to power in the first place was that they had access to guns. Armed civilians wouldn’t have solved the problem; they were the cause of it. Stalin, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had a minority of votes and were only able to seize power in a military coup. Second of all, armed citizens did try to stop them; it was called the Russian Civil War and lasted between 1917 and 1922. So to claim that armed civilians could have stopped the Bolsheviks is to be ignorant of the fact that they tried and failed to do so.

 

[Brain357]

Yemen has lots and lots of guns. What a nice place that is.

 

[there4eyeM]

If it weren't pathetic, it would be funny; the image of overfed couch potatoes resisting the U.S. Armed Forces! Do people really imagine that scenario today? O.K., conjuring up the proverbial, improbable "s.h.t.f.", killing off neighbors before being killed, at most. But, without a high degree of preparedness, training and co-ordination, going up against even the most rank recruits of a trained army? N. f. w.

 

[pismoe]

concerning stalin and polpot yep , I sure can't imagine you libs resisting even if you had guns . Anyway , afghanis peasants drove off the soviet union after they were given weapons and guns so that example shows the value of weapons . Course afghans fought the USSR even before they were given guns because they already had guns that were old . And , how is mrobama doing in his war against the JV teams Gents ??

 

[pismoe]

and a bit of info on 'pol pot' --- Pol Pot - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com --- people were not able to fight back so were herded like cattle .

 

[there4eyeM]

see stalin in the ussr , see idi amin in Uganda . The history of the world is full of legal governments murdering their people Brian .

Let’s start with the first claimed example, that of the Soviet Union. Anyone who claims that an armed group of civilians could have stopped Stalin clearly has never opened a history book. First of all, the only reason the Bolsheviks were able to come to power in the first place was that they had access to guns. Armed civilians wouldn’t have solved the problem; they were the cause of it. Stalin, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had a minority of votes and were only able to seize power in a military coup. Second of all, armed citizens did try to stop them; it was called the Russian Civil War and lasted between 1917 and 1922. So to claim that armed civilians could have stopped the Bolsheviks is to be ignorant of the fact that they tried and failed to do so.

The Nixon-Kissinger de-stabalization of Cambodia (through the illegal invasion) led to Kmer Rouge takeover. The irony is that Vietnam (that's right, united Vietnam) took out the régime of murderers.

 

[pismoe]

see stalin in the ussr , see idi amin in Uganda . The history of the world is full of legal governments murdering their people Brian .

Let’s start with the first claimed example, that of the Soviet Union. Anyone who claims that an armed group of civilians could have stopped Stalin clearly has never opened a history book. First of all, the only reason the Bolsheviks were able to come to power in the first place was that they had access to guns. Armed civilians wouldn’t have solved the problem; they were the cause of it. Stalin, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had a minority of votes and were only able to seize power in a military coup. Second of all, armed citizens did try to stop them; it was called the Russian Civil War and lasted between 1917 and 1922. So to claim that armed civilians could have stopped the Bolsheviks is to be ignorant of the fact that they tried and failed to do so.

The Nixon-Kissinger de-stabalization of Cambodia (through the illegal invasion) led to Kmer Rouge takeover. The irony is that Vietnam (that's right, united Vietnam) took out the régime of murderers.

----------------------- who cares , your info is off topic . The Cambodians had no arms and no way to resist so they were easily herded , many to their deaths , torture , slavery 4eye .

 

[Brain357]

and a bit of info on 'pol pot' --- Pol Pot - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com --- people were not able to fight back so were herded like cattle .

Not having guns was not the problem.

 

[Brain357]

Militia Myths: Why Armed Populations Don’t Prevent Tyranny, But Often Lead To It

Moving to the modern era, Militias have a terrible history of creating tyranny, even when fighting against foreign powers. Militias that have been successful in warding off foreign aggression overwhelmingly opposed democratic rule. A few examples are Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cuba, Somalia, Iraq, and southern Lebanon; in none of these countries did the militias promote a free State. Add to this list countries where militias have ripped apart society in tribal states or civil war (such as Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Colombia, and the Palestinian Territories) and we can form an even clearer picture of militias. For a more immediate example, one only has to look at the bewildering array of militias (more than “1,000” according to Robin Wright) currently fighting in Syria to see how little they promote democratic values and how ineffective they tend to be on the battlefield. While there may be an example of victorious militias replacing tyranny with freedom since the industrial age hiding somewhere in an obscure footnote of history, the rule that militias are detrimental to preserving freedom holds.

 

[Brain357]

However, gun advocates claim, armed populations never have the chance to stop tyranny as they are disarmed first. There are many cases though where this is demonstrably untrue. Yemen is currently the second most heavily armed country in the world (per capita), and it is currently a battlefield between a Western dictatorship and various Jihadist organizations who have no love for a free State. Saudi Arabia and several other Arab countries are heavily armed, with what can only be described as tyrannical governments. Iraq before the 2003 US invasion is perhaps the best example. Saddam Hussein falls under any definition of a tyrannical dictator, yet the Iraqi people were very heavily armed with a gun culture mirroring that of the US. How armed a population is appears to have no empirical bearing on how free that society is.

 

[Brain357]

Pol Pot took the guns
The claims of Cambodian gun control leading to genocide is, like the Uganda case, a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that conveniently ignores the fact that there was a massive five year civil war from 1970-75 in which the Republican forces protecting the “one million educated people” were decisively defeated. As Robert Spitzer, the author of “The Politics of Gun Control” states the idea that gun control led to genocide in Cambodia and the other countries mentioned represents “a cartoonish view of the complex events” and the people touting these ideas “don’t know comparative politics, they don’t know international relations, they haven’t studied war.”

 

[Brain357]

concerning stalin and polpot yep , I sure can't imagine you libs resisting even if you had guns . Anyway , afghanis peasants drove off the soviet union after they were given weapons and guns so that example shows the value of weapons . Course afghans fought the USSR even before they were given guns because they already had guns that were old . And , how is mrobama doing in his war against the JV teams Gents ??

So gun ownership created the Taliban. What a win for guns.

 

[pismoe]

Taliban were fine , just peasants fighting and removing a Super Power invader . Course the Taliban had weapons , we just gave them better guns and weapons so they could kick azz Brian .

 

[OldLady]

Taliban were fine , just peasants fighting and removing a Super Power invader . Course the Taliban had weapons , we just gave them better guns and weapons so they could kick azz Brian .

It's BRAIN, not Brian. Like the grey matter between your ears, ya know?

 

[Brain357]

Taliban were fine , just peasants fighting and removing a Super Power invader . Course the Taliban had weapons , we just gave them better guns and weapons so they could kick azz Brian .

Yes the Taliban are real good people if you like terrorists.