Too many people will hear that and just believe it without checking to see if it's really true. Hard to imagine 1911 Turkey had gun control laws, as opposed to people just not having guns. And would that saved them from the genocide? That's another entirely different question based on entirely different factors.

The weapon bans & confiscations were certainly not what *caused* the holocaust. That was just plain old bigotry, hatred, and extreme-nationalism. But no doubt disarming the citizens just made it alot simpler.

The holocaust did not start until well into Nazi rule.

outright fucking nutjobs like Sam and Herman Cain actually make a significant dent in republican polling really shows how crazy the supporters of that party have become.

The fact that he actually has a chance at winning a seat in Congress proves that a significant number of people in this country are simply too fucking stupid for words.

jews were big gun enthusiasts in prewar europe

I expected better from noted historian and sociologist Joe Wurzelbacher.

Answer: nobody.

Melt his guns down and make solar panels, hybrid cars, commuter trains, and giant... giant dildos out of them. Because fuck Joe The Plumber.

Last edited Tue Jun 19, 2012, 05:00 PM - Edit history (1)

...breaking his shop windows it would have stopped Nazi antisemitism in its tracks. Made it unthinkable, even, for them to come back later and lynch the guy.

IIRC, the Wiemar-era gun control laws were intended to keep groups like the nazis from acting like private armies (like the nazis actually did in the 1923 beer-hall putch. In that sense, it worked in that the Nazis staged a political takeover rather than an armed revolution.

I know the keys are near, but 900 years is 900 years.

You should see the jams I get into when I do that in the Tardis.

in France, Holland, Poland, etc....

.... our gungeon.

Someone should be along shortly with that Pol Pot, Stalin poster.

the disarmed Jews in Germany were far easier to round up than the armed ones in Warsaw (many were killed anyway, but not in camps).


If I were trying to strip away a group of people's rights and ultimately exterminate them it would be far easier if they were first disarmed.

The thing is young, of course, but you have set the bar pretty high for those who might follow....

It its obvious you know next to nothing of the matter.

A logical rebuttal may have been more worth your effort.

Are you seriously arguing that it is easier to control people who own guns than to control people without guns?

Anyway you may want to rethink your debate style. Starting out full-douche doesn't leave you anywhere to go. Start out semi-douche then you can work yourself up as the conversation progresses.

It is abundantly clear from your comment you know nothing about the subject. Any comment made from ignorance is bound to be stupid, and yours has been spectacularly so. It is really not worth the effort to educate you, nor is it my responsibility, or of the slightest interest to me, to do so. But you know nothing of the history which you are making such a shabby and cheap attempt to invoke in service of a private obsession with possession of the power of life and death over others.

Because, you know, a Holy Defender of the Even Holier RKBA can do no wrong.

You just wait and see.

Check--- this is the dumbest post ever read on DU.

You want to round up people in to camps against their will, let's say.

Would you prefer A) they are armed or B) they are not armed.

It's easy enough to say "hurr you iz dum huhhuh".

But that often falls short of an actual argument.

Dumb statements are easily refuted with evidence right? If I had said "water is dry" you could refute that.

So do so.

Prove that it is in fact easier to commit genocide against armed people rather than unarmed.

It's pretty self-evident that forcing someone to do something they don't like is easier if you have a weapon and they don't.

Yeah that little rabbit rifle will do the trick against the SS.

Un-Fucking really stupid---it fucking burns.

At Tue Jun 19, 2012, 01:57 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Double Down stupid.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=829024

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

4thLoR makes a statement about disarming citizens then Trumad exclaims at the stupidity (offering no counterpoint or discussion). 4thLoR replies with his reasoning/explanation and Trumad basically comes back with more baseles "stupid" insults and no meaninful discussion. "Un-Fucking really stupid" ... really? That is supposed to be civil discussion? IMO, this poster is being completely rude and insensitive... just because an opinion may be disagreeable is no reason to be rude and insulting.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jun 19, 2012, 02:13 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Trumad appears to be persisting in calling the argument stupid - NOT the poster he's responding to. Whether or not he backs up his position isn't really "jury business."
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: One: much worse personal attacks are left alone. Two: alerted post is factually correct on all counts. Three: there is no number three. Go take a nap.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I believe most of these posts to be disruptive, so let them fight it out!


Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The poster has the right to his opinion...and I have heard much worse said....we can't be so freaking sensitive if we are going to have substantive discussions.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Thanks

Whu-pah!!!

that "The Army has tanks and flamethrowers. We don't. Looks like we're pretty fucked if we try to fight the Army." Nuff said.

glad to see your beliefs are so thoroughly grounded in unreality.

But since you don't hang around much in the Religion forum, that's an understandable mistake.

I wouldn't hold not hanging around that forum against anybody.

Just sayin'.

and there've been a lot...

Congrats!



RL

it burns.

One more ReTHUG moron

Look it up...no, wait, don't. Just take my word for it.

Has Joe been hitting the bath salts?

I'm surprised more of them haven't surfaced to claim, "I'm a liberal, mind you, but Joe's got a point...."

The people we are fighting are armed with guns and home made explosives. They have no tanks and airplanes. And despite this, they've continued to fight us for more than 10 years.

(not trying to jump into the validity of his argument, but what you are saying supports his point)

You just won "dumbest SOB of the month."

And he only has an ice cube's chance in a blast furnace of beating her in November.