Saturday, February 17, 2018

From The Comments

Jeffrey Smith said...
Cough cough.
If you make history-based arguments, please ensure your history is correct.
German gun control laws were put in place by the Weimar Republic well before the Nazis came to power. And given that the overwhelming number of Jewish victims were living outside of Germany in September 1939, the relevant gun control laws are those of the Soviets, Poles, French, etc. 
I will be blunt and say this: anyone who thinks a group of citizens can outfight the government is the one living in a fantasy world. Bundy faced down the government not because he utilized his Second Amendment rights but because he utilized his First Amendment rights.

This deserves to be on the front page and deserves a reply, thanks to Jeff for taking the time to comment.  Here goes.

1. I know when the laws were passed in Germany and who passed them. Then the Nazis came to power and put them to use. This perfectly proves my point. Trusting the current government with more control because it seems benign sets you up for any future government to misuse power.

2. If you want to discuss the gun control put in place by the USSR, the outcome was more horrific than Germany's. The collectivization of the Stalin Era, the gulags, and resultant famines exceed the deaths in the Nazi extermination camps.

3. The Poles and French, along with other conquered countries including most of the USSR west of Moscow, fell under Nazi control and Nazi martial law, and then the Jews in those countries were rounded up for transport.

4. If you think that it would be possible to disarm the American populace without their active cooperation, you haven't thought it through. All we would have to to do is refuse. Look at drug laws, prohibition, and immigration.

5. There would be no need and no reason to outfight anyone, no one goes up against a superior force. If the people actively resisted, however, it would be impossible for the government to even begin a confiscation. Any indigenous populace on their own land can resist a military force. Consider Vietnam and Afghanistan when you want to talk about the limits of what an army can do. Then, who is going to do it? Are you thinking of using the Army to invade cities and go house to house? Do you think local police will do it? Are you going to assume that either of those groups would even follow those orders when it meant knocking on doors of fathers, brothers, sons, and close friends? Then, do you think the populace would sit in their homes and wait for that knock? Think hard about who the gun owners are. There would be, planned or not, what would amount to a general strike by the very people that are the ones paying taxes, working farms, keeping the lights and water on, etc.

6. Bundy and the people that came out to support him, right or wrong, most definitely used their 2nd Amendment rights along the 1st. You don't have to fire a weapon for the weapon to have the desired effect. Neither side wanted it to come to shooting or it would have. On a more individual level, there are far more many times that a weapon is used to stop or prevent a crime than they are used to shoot criminals. This is true both for police and the citizens that carry. 

I have one more thing to say and this not that this is part of the reply to what I see as an honest comment. If laws were passed that disarmed the citizens of the United States, what you would have by the time the disarmament was accomplished, would be a police state. There be a before and after. All our freedoms are intertwined in ways we barely understand and we pluck at those threads at our own peril. It might not be as bad as Nazi Germany or the USSR at first, but that power to force citizens to comply would corrupt and someone would come along to grasp that power.


7 comments:

Miguel GFZ said...

"I will be blunt and say this: anyone who thinks a group of citizens can outfight the government is the one living in a fantasy world."

I would like to respond to that one with one of my posts.

https://gunfreezone.net/index.php/2013/01/14/those-who-fail-to-understand-history/

Jeffrey Smith said...

Thanks for answering with a whole post. But my original point was merely that German gun laws were actually irrelevant. You are right about the Soviets--but it was because of Soviet treatment of gun owners the Jews of the Ukraine and Belarus could not shoot back. If they had no guns, it was because Stalin had blocked guns before 1940.

My further comment did not refer to gun confiscation, but to the idea that armed response to any government will never succeed if you think in terms of outshooting the government. Bundy faced down the government because he got enough people to voice approval of his claim, not because the government was afraid to start shooting. If they were afraid it was because they didn't want the people to think they were aggressing. All First Amendment, all of it.

ASM826 said...

A good example and one I thought of when he made that comment. Thanks for the link.

Will said...

"... not because the government was afraid to start shooting. If they were afraid it was because they didn't want the people to think they were aggressing. All First Amendment, all of it."

You are so full of it.
I'm guessing you know nothing about shooters or gunnies. The bunch that were gathered in support of Bundy were such. The typical badge carrier in NOT a shooter. they are merely issued a gun to tote around with the rest of their gear. Even the ones in tactical depts are not necessarily shooters. In fact, for more than the last 20 years, shooting enthusiasts have been unofficially barred from applying for police and deputies jobs, due to management wanting to be PC. I've talked to officers that told me they had to lie about being experienced with guns, to get on the force.

Generally, the private citizens are the ones who are hesitant to start shooting, but the .gov group knew that if they started the festivities, they weren't going home. THAT is why they backed off. They were over-matched, and knew it. Remember, they get a paycheck for toting that badge, and they only go active when they know, or at least think, they have overwhelming force.

juvat said...

"It might not be as bad as Nazi Germany or the USSR at first, but that power to force citizens to comply would corrupt and someone would come along to grasp that power."

Do you think someone named Hillary would use that power for the good of the citizens?

Bueller? Bueller?

Rich P said...

http://blog.joehuffman.org/2014/05/10/quote-of-the-dayaleksandr-i-solzhenitsyn/

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume One)

"Carry your guns, people. It's a lighter burden than regret."

Comrade Misfit said...

Another example: Metrification. The Ford Administration wanted to promote the metric system and abolish the English system. You can see how well that worked. Most Americans refused to go along and the program died of neglect.