Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The victims wouldn't stand a chance, even if individually armed, against the German police forces and military unless they formed their own organized deployment of force. That's being optimistic about it. Is that what you are assuming the Jews in Germany could/should have done? Do you have any evidence that the Jewish citizens in Germany had any reason to take this approach as of a certain point in time?
There were a good number of Jews who began leaving Germany as individuals almost as soon as the Nazis gained political power inside Germany. They were well informed about the political situation, they were probably also well educated. It was those who didn't leave that became victims. The racial policy of the Nazis had been publicized for some time prior.
This notion by gun-lovers in the U.S. that armed citizens could resist the tyranny of a miltary coup, for instance, by firing their weapons at the USAF and Army tanks, etc., is just so ludicrous as not to be even worth discussing.
The Warsaw Uprising took soldiers away from the fronts and helped the allies. Now if all of the victims had done so, if the people in occupied countries had resisted more...it could have been like Vietnam for the Nazis for the years before the Allies won. Vietnam, and Afghanistan against the soviets back in the 80's, prove that a well armed civilian population can indeed resist powerful armies...and win if determined.
You dont think the Nazi soldiers might have had second thoughts about rounding up people like cattle if those people were able to fight back?
Its easy to get people to commit atrocities when theres little or no danger to themselves.
Did the American soldiers have second thoughts when Viet Cong were able to fight back? This also answers your second question---about how easy it is to get people to commmit atrocities.
Every Iraqi man had a rifle when our troops arrived there. What good did it do them?
I live in Virginia we shoot target, skeet, trap and wobble. One was purchased for safety during a specific period of time when we truly needed it (had a stalker type situation-police advised me to get a gun) and teh rest were handed down to me from family members.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Where do you people live, that you have to turn your house into an armed fortress? I've lived in 14 states, and never felt any need to own a gun. How lucky do you have to be to go to 14 different places, and never hit a single one where you need to defend yourself with a gun. The odds must be astronomical.
I have never known one single person who had a gun because he needed one, but did not like guns and did not want to own one. Doesn't that seen a little bit odd?
I get a feeling that the people who love guns all need them, but people who don't love guns don't need them at all. It's almost enough to make me feel like nobody really needs a gun. Like coffee. Nobody needs coffee except people who love coffee. .
This notion by gun-lovers in the U.S. that armed citizens could resist the tyranny of a miltary coup, for instance, by firing their weapons at the USAF and Army tanks, etc., is just so ludicrous as not to be even worth discussing.
Hmm. You sure about that?
Remember that the armed forces are made up of regular, patriotic Americans. Then consider the number of "USAF and Army tanks, etc." vs. the number of armed households in this country.
Not ludicrous at all. Unless the government wanted to drop nukes on U.S. soil, revolution - if enough people felt it was necessary - would be guaranteed. That's the beauty of the 2nd Amendment.
Remember that the armed forces are made up of regular, patriotic Americans. Then consider the number of "USAF and Army tanks, etc." vs. the number of armed households in this country.
Not ludicrous at all. Unless the government wanted to drop nukes on U.S. soil, revolution - if enough people felt it was necessary - would be guaranteed. That's the beauty of the 2nd Amendment.
Now consider that the "enemy within" is a far right-wing McCarthyite dictatorship that wants to deny Americans their constitutional rights, establish Christianity as the state religion, control the media, intern millions in FEMA camps with no due process. And the beauty of the 2nd Amendment puts most of the private weapons on the side of the military dictatorship.
Remember that the armed forces are made up of regular, patriotic Americans. Then consider the number of "USAF and Army tanks, etc." vs. the number of armed households in this country.
Not ludicrous at all. Unless the government wanted to drop nukes on U.S. soil, revolution - if enough people felt it was necessary - would be guaranteed. That's the beauty of the 2nd Amendment.
You're far from making a convincing argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
