Weapons

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Pan Tau
So if you have the choice to die with your family "right now" or to be deported together with your family and maybe survive (in reallity this chance was smaller by far, but the Jews did not know) - what would you choose?
Click to expand...


I choose death over bondage.

Originally posted by Pan Tau
The Jews were not sheeple, not at all - read about the Warshaw-Ghetto if you want the proof. And even before this heroic fight some did resist, some of them had been higly decorated German soldiers in WWI.
Click to expand...

The Israli's are proof the Jews are not sheeple.

Originally posted by Pan Tau
And I find it offensive too to tell Stmmzaum "people like him would cause genozide". This does not fit this forum - but I guess you don´t care.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I don't care. I speak the TRUTH as I know it. Genocide does not happen all by itself. There is a cause. Look within yourself and you will see.

BTW, this forum's moderators are quite capable of deciding what fits or does not fit this forum. I will abide by their decisions, not yours.
 
SF, you do realise that the civil unrest in Germany following WW1 was made worse by the people who had firearms that they used to defend their fatherland? You do realise that the Nazis (well, the paramilitary wing) grew out of the Frie korps, a bunch of thugs who used their 'home defense' weapons to attack various groups including communists, democrats, Jews, Gypsies etc? So really your argument is bunk, the Holocaust was allowed because of people who were more like you than you seem to realise. Oh, and I did some research into the Nuremburg laws and those that followed it, there was no gun ownership legislation directed against Jews or anyone else, but the fact is that if a Jew shot a German, or even attacked one with a club in self defense, not just that man but his family and his community would all be punished, most likely by the death of many and the destruction of property. So no, whether they had firearms or not the Jews were hardly likely to prevent the holocaust.

Oh, and I forgot to mention, I am not against gun ownership, in fact I am currently sorting out an application for a firearms certificate, I just disagree with the notion that weapons owned by civilians will protect your nation from invasion or prevent genocide. Believe me guys, I am not criticising those of who who own guns, if I could I would too but I would not do so under the impression that it was going to protect my nation because it won't.
 
BTW, this forum's moderators are quite capable of deciding what fits or does not fit this forum. I will abide by their decisions, not yours.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between what fits and what is allowed - but I see you like to generalize :rolleyes: However we can agree to have great moderators here.

Stmmzaum is historically correct. And you can imagine it is harder to decide if you should fight back or not if you have to choose from your family and community being "dead" forever or "in bondage" for maybe just some time.(I tried to say that in the earlier post).
I can decide for myself not to take bondage but death but it is a horrible decision if this is linked to the ones you love. (I tried to say that in the earlier post).

Andreas
 
Originally posted by Pan Tau
Stmmzaum is historically correct. And you can imagine it is harder to decide if you should fight back or not if you have to choose from your family and community being "dead" forever or "in bondage" for maybe just some time.
Click to expand...

To live in bondage is no life. Death is preferable to me. This is a concept that freedom loving Americans understand. This may be at the core of our disagreement. You can conceive of a situation whereby you would accept bondage.

I can never do that.
 
Originally posted by Semper Fi
To live in bondage is no life. Death is preferable to me.
You can conceive of a situation whereby you would accept bondage. I can never do that.
Click to expand...
Ever been arrested Semp? Spent any time in jail?
Obviously not because you are still alive.
 
I've been in jail, Beenaround, and I still think your post to Semper fi is crap. Jail in a free nation is temporary unless you've killed John Lennon or a President. And paying the consequences for breaking the law is entirely different from being free and haveing someone or some nation attempt to take that freedom.

Just more of your typical objection for the sake of arguments sake.
What do you drink every night before going to bed, a big cup of bile?

.. ....

Stmm Zaumm: this is revisionist inanity:
<<<SF, you do realise that the civil unrest in Germany following WW1 was made worse by the people who had firearms that they used to defend their fatherland? You do realise that the Nazis (well, the paramilitary wing) grew out of the Frie korps, a bunch of thugs who used their 'home defense' weapons to attack various groups including communists, democrats, Jews, Gypsies etc? So really your argument is bunk, the Holocaust was allowed because of people who were more like you than you seem to realise.>>

Yeah, I understand completely, SZ, gunowners caused the Holocaust, not criminals with guns. And to link Semper fi's posts and views on firearms with Nazis pre WWll is a ridiculous and dishonest assertion.

The civil unrest in Germany is universally understood by historians, really, not even a debate, as being primarily due to the economic restraints and debts Germany was forced to sign ending WWl.
Neither I nor history is defending Germany, but it is clear in hindsight Germany could not survive under the terms of the first World War. You know this, I know it. This allowed a climate of extremism to flourish. The Gun had nothing to do with this.

Actually, your Prime Minister at the time enabled and appeased NAZI GERMANY after she violated the terms of surrender in the first World War and armed, and then attacked neighboring nations.
Britain attempted appeasment. Then had to borrow weapons from the US.

This is why Tony Blair gets it and you do not. At least he see's confronting evil is neccesary. He learned from history.

munk
 
Oh, and I forgot to mention, I am not against gun ownership, in fact I am currently sorting out an application for a firearms certificate, I just disagree with the notion that weapons owned by civilians will protect your nation from invasion or prevent genocide. ...Stmmzaum

I recall once we seperated from Britain under just such a circumstance. So did Afganistan from Russian rule only a few years ago. So it doesn't matter if you disagree, it is a historic reality.


<<You can not honestly tell me that Germany did not invade Britain because of the Home Guard, that is rediculous. A bunch of old men and boys armed with a smattering of ex military rifles, the odd WW1 Lewis gun and a stash of shot guns, hunting rifles and broomsticks with knives on the end? Come off it, there were other more important concerns (like the Royal Navy, loss of the Battle of Britain, lack of landing craft and an invasion force that was far too small to achieve anything anyway, Hitler never wanted to invade Britain otherwise he would have actually have made some reasonable plans and not been preparing for the invasion of Russia). >> StmmZuam

This shows you do not even understand your own history. Germany had active plans to invade Britain well before she attacked Russia. The Battle in the air (name escapes me- you know the one, or should) ruined Germany's hope of an island invasion.

Winston Churchill thought invasion a real possibility and armed the populace. I'll take his judgement over yours.

munk
 
Andreas,
Semper fi and I both obviously see StmmZaum's take on firearm and weapon ownership as a threat to same. That does mean to me that he enables dictatorships and is anti freedom.

I understand you don't see that. I understand StmmZaum doesn't see that. That's fine. I'm used to it.



munk
 
If this was about Free Speech we wouldn't be having this discussion. Everyone understands and agrees free speech is a good thing.

In the United States, to protect the First, we have the Second. Arms are the teeth that assert this Government belongs to us.
The French considered the US at one time a marvelous, wonderful experient with freedom.

It still is.

thanks to all,

munk
 
<<<Stmm Zaumm: this is revisionist inanity:

Yeah, I understand completely, SZ, gunowners caused the Holocaust, not criminals with guns. And to link Semper fi's posts and views on firearms with Nazis pre WWll is a ridiculous and dishonest assertion. >>>

The Frie Korps was made up of people who believed that they held their firearms in order to defend their nation, if it was not for the fact that these people existed and held these beliefs then the Nazis could never have succeeded because they would not have been able to fight.


<<<Neither I nor history is defending Germany, but it is clear in hindsight Germany could not survive under the terms of the first World War. You know this, I know it. This allowed a climate of extremism to flourish. The Gun had nothing to do with this. >>>

I was not saying that, I was simply saying that if SF is going to argue that gun ownership would have prevented the holocaust he should remember that the Nazi party had its origins in the street fighting that followed the second war, fighting that was made worse by the fact that there were a large number of people who held their own firearms in order to defend their nation (in this case, against the ‘degenerates’ whom they felt to be taking over).

<<<Britain attempted appeasment. Then had to borrow weapons from the US.
This is why Tony Blair gets it and you do not. At least he see's confronting evil is neccesary. He learned from history.
Munk>>>

Why the hell are you bringing Iraq into this? Of what relivance is it? Have you forgotten that TB is totally anti gun-ownership? Oh, and it had nothing to do with history.

<<<I recall once we seperated from Britain under just such a circumstance. So did Afganistan from Russian rule only a few years ago. So it doesn't matter if you disagree, it is a historic reality.>>>

How long ago? And is Britain Iraq? And is Britain under threat from foreign invaders? No.

<<<This shows you do not even understand your own history. Germany had active plans to invade Britain well before she attacked Russia. The Battle in the air (name escapes me- you know the one, or should) ruined Germany's hope of an island invasion.
Winston Churchill thought invasion a real possibility and armed the populace. I'll take his judgement over yours.
munk >>>

Germany had a plan to invade Britain, sure, they were going to land 3 divisions in Kent, they were going to get onto the British beaches (which had defenses almost as strong as those faced on D-Day, consider how much effort it took to take Normandy) across the channel in rough weather using flat bottomed rhine barges under bombardment from the Royal Navy and shore batteries? No, that is not a realistic plan, more to the point all this time troops were being transferred to the Eastern front. Sure Winston Churchill thought there might be an invasion, he didn’t have information on the German plans (listen, he didn’t arm the populace, he organised small forces called the Local Defense Volunteers, watch ‘Dads Army’ and you will see what I mean). Oh, and you are forgetting that unlike the US most men between the ages of 17 and 47 in Britain were already in the forces so the ‘armed populace’ consisted of boys (aged 16-18 and awaiting callup) and old men (aged over 50). The air battle was the Battle of Britain by the way, please, don’t insult my knowledge of History (particularly when your knowledge of same seems remarkably limited), I have been studying it for years now and if its good enough for Sheffield University its good enough for the blinkin forum.

<<<Andreas,
Semper fi and I both obviously see StmmZaum's take on firearm and weapon ownership as a threat to same. That does mean to me that he enables dictatorships and is anti freedom.
I understand you don't see that. I understand StmmZaum doesn't see that. That's fine. I'm used to it.
Munk>>>

How am I anti-freedom? Just because I feel that in my country gun ownership a la the US is not the right option to go for and because I believe that SF was talking bunk when he abrought the Hollocaust into this? Maybe if you studied British history you would understand my mindset, we are the only nation in Europe that brought about major political reform without a violent revolution of any kind. Our nation has not been successfully invaded since the Normans, looking back we now know that 60 years ago there was no hope that an invasion would have succeeded.

<<<If this was about Free Speech we wouldn't be having this discussion. Everyone understands and agrees free speech is a good thing.>>>

Where’d that come from? Who mentioned free speech?
 
The civil unrest in Germany is universally understood by historians, really, not even a debate, as being primarily due to the economic restraints and debts Germany was forced to sign ending WWl.
Click to expand...
No. The German "Revolution" went place before the the German government signed the Versailles treaty or even before the conditions of surrender were clear (Germany surrendered on the basis of Wilson´s ten point-programme). It was caused by returning or deflecting soldiers and seamen who saw that the war was lost and who did not want to be "sacrificed". A strong communist movement was part of this revolution, the socialist and the democratic Republic of Germany were declared at the same day. The Freicorps Stmmzaum mentions were dangerous in the early years of the "Weimar-Republic". The were former soldiers who refused to get demobilized. Imagine a 17 or 18 year old young man who volunteers for war and leaves school to fight at the front. He learns to fight gets near mad and disillusioned in the trenches at the western front and returns after four and a half years. He did not finish school. He never learnt a job. The older ones have, they could return into their jobs and professions he cannot and is kind of rootless. He cannot join the military to do what he learnt because post WWI German army was limited to 100 000 men. There were many of these young men and they were armed. They glorified the war because war was the only thing they had done - they had to fill it with sense. This was it, what caused the lack of safety.
But this situation is different to an armed society because a "Freikorps" is not a "society".



Germany had active plans to invade Britain well before she attacked Russia. The Battle in the air (name escapes me- you know the one, or should) ruined Germany's hope of an island invasion.
Click to expand...

Yes. The "Operation Seeloewe" was planned and ready to be taken out as soon as air supremacy was sure. This never happened - but homeland denfenders caught quite some downed pilots and lynched them. The same thing happened sometimes to allied pilots. No wonder if you have seen pictures of Coventry or Dresden after the bombings. (And yes, Germany was the first to bomb cities (civilian parts of London were bombed by mistake, this lead to a spiral of escalation)).
So weapons in civilian hands had some effect. But I think the Homeland defence - thing as it was carried out in Britain would have had the same effect as the "Volkssturm" had in Germany - close to nothing.
This is history and maybe it has less to do with gun-control than you would like - but I see your point.

Andreas
 
I'm mostly out of my league on this thread but I'm going to come out of mostly lurk mode, on this thread, to mention that according to StmmZaum's profile he is just 19 years old.
Hardly old enough to have really lived yet in my opinion as 19 years doesn't give a man many of the opinions or life experience to develop those opinions that age brings.
It seems to me that StmmZaum has bought into the UK's stance on gun control and therefore people control. Seems really similar to the German Youth Corp back when according to what little I know about it.
People who haven't experienced the freedom we have I think find it hard to understand just where we Americans thought's are on it.

"You can have peace or you can have freedom, but you can't have both at the same time."
-Robert Heinlein-

Back to lurk mode, on this thread.:rolleyes:
 
Oh - and munk,
four posts in a row :eek:- that shows the importance of this topic to you, I apreciate this.

Have a good night - I have to work now - and sleep when I finished to correct those bl**dy exams.

Andreas
 
Interesting discussion, but these types of discussions cannot be resolved. Fact of the matter is, there is no "right" answer to an issue like this. With that being said, I'll throw in my 2 cents on the subject (just because I'm opinionated). Please understand that I respect everyone's opinion out there, even if I don't agree with it. It's nice to be able to voice one, eh?

In short, this debate is superfluous. Mankind is, and always has, resolved issues and progessed through warfare--whether anyone likes it or not. From antiquity through infinity, I can see no end to this behavior. It is part of our nature as a species.

At least from the US perspective (and I am know how this goes over internationally--I'm reasonably well traveled), this is an irrelevant debate in my eyes. It is our right to arm and defend ourselves, and it is our responsibility to protect that right. Now I'm not a card carrying member of the NRA, and I only own 1 pistol and a shotgun. However, ownership is the right of Americans--period. Does this make a more violent socitey? Does it threaten the poor children and lead to Imperialist ambitions?

The answer (again, IMO) is irrelevant. Mental masturbation to some extent. It is a right, and arguably, a duty. Let people do their studies to understand. In the end, it doesn't change the nature of the beast.

Now, psychologically, why would one be interested in implements of war (being firearms, khukuris, swords, etc)? It is, and has been, the foundation for the survival of mankind. Could it possibly create an artifical sense of security? How about abuse of power by those that have weapons? Certainly. It has. It does. It will.

Protect yourself. It's your responsibility.

--Rip
 
Originally posted by Yvsa
I'm mostly out of my league on this thread but I'm going to come out of mostly lurk mode, on this thread, to mention that according to StmmZaum's profile he is just 19 years old.
Hardly old enough to have really lived yet in my opinion as 19 years doesn't give a man many of the opinions or life experience to develop those opinions that age brings.
It seems to me that StmmZaum has bought into the UK's stance on gun control and therefore people control. Seems really similar to the German Youth Corp back when according to what little I know about it.
People who haven't experienced the freedom we have I think find it hard to understand just where we Americans thought's are on it.

"You can have peace or you can have freedom, but you can't have both at the same time."
-Robert Heinlein-

Back to lurk mode, on this thread.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

18 actually, unless I made a mistake on my profile, I will have to watch that one. I agree that it isn't enough time to see much of the world, then again it doesn't mean I can't have opinions. I haven't expressed any views on people control, simply my opinion that in Britain we do not have the revolutionary history that the USA does and therefore we do not really have the same 'need' for weapons etc to safeguard out liberty. The Falklands was hardly a political revolution, I should have been more specific as I was talking about the major parliamentary reform from the early 19th century to the present day (in the same period think about the events in Europe and so on, we had riots sure, the chartists and the like, but there was nothing like the German revolution of 1918).

Anyhow, please apreciate that I respect your views on the issue, I wasn't saying that gun ownership caused the hollocaust, simply that it was as responsible as gun control. As for the home guard issue, there wasn't going to be an invasion, there was a fear of it but analysis of the plans the Germans had show that a) it would have failed and b) Hitler was not really serious, it did not get his full attention as he had more 'important' things on his mind, plus the Germans were trying to negotiate with Britain for peace (not that we were listening much).

Anyhow, how the hell did we get onto this? Shall we go back to the discussion of Khuks and such?
 
thanks RippNTear - sounds like a good last word. (sorry if I brought in too much of a "history lesson").
(You see, I just do not want to correct these exams in front of me and go back to the forums every half an hour or so...) Have to gain more self dicipline...)
Andreas
 
Andreas, you speak of who had arms and why they were unemployed, but not why. Germany was bankrupt, could not become solvent, and extreme nationalism flourished. By being concrete and literal only, and not looking at the bigger picture, you manage to scape goat the blame. Disenfranchised vets did not make the holocaust; Germany did. The lesson of Germany in WWll is that it can happen anywhere, not just Germany.



munk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top