2328 replies to this topic

[mrdannyg]

ShakeZuma, on 23 June 2012 - 03:51 AM, said:

this argument is extremely confusing to me. let me try to understand, danny, you're basically saying that a person without a gun has an equal ability to defend him or herself than a person with a gun...? could you also travel from new york to la in a car equally as fast as you could in a plane?

What if all my neighbours hate me and they all have guns? Am I better defended with a gun in that scenario, or would I rather none of us had guns?

hblask, on 23 June 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

I don't even see how this can be up for debate, based on both common sense and history.To note: I'm not saying the Holocaust would not have occurred, but clearly there would've been fewer innocent deaths if Nazi soldiers died in the streets at random moments. It is impossible to overpower an armed populace that is ready to defend itself to the death. Did the Jews meet that criteria? Once they saw how bad it is, I think they would've been. That probably wouldn't have been in time to stop the entire thing, because some people will wait until there are no other options and no other hope.

Tim and LLY are covering your stupidity reasonably well, but you do realize that an armed populace doesn't mean that every Jew just has a gun and can shoot people whenever they feel like it, right? Like, soldiers don't just knock at your door, say "come on down, its death camp time" and if you shoot them, then they don't come back stronger, and maybe don't knock next time, and maybe don't knock at your neighbours door either.

hblask, on 24 June 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

Wow, some people really need to study history harder. An determined armed populace generally wins over technologically superior invaders. Have we really reached a point in this country where people don't believe that an armed populace is harder to oppress than an unarmed populace? Really? I... just.... wtf?

Simplifying things is necessary to understand them. Oversimplifying them has the potential to remove important specifics. Try harder to be less simple. Not that it would've helped, but the Jews in the late 1920's and early 1930's COULD NOT have become an determined armed populace, even if guns were allowed and publicly available. They weren't allowed to own land or run businesses. I'm guessing no one was selling them AK-47's either.

hblask, on 24 June 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

Explain that to the Soviet Union regarding Afghanistan.... or the US.Hint: there were no drones during WWII. Every Jew who was killed required a face-to-face confrontation. Six million died. You don't think six million points of resistance could've made a dent?Of course, not all 6 million would've done it, because most people are cowards. But the largest size estimate I found for Hitler's army at any time was about 4.5M, with most estimates less than a million.Estimates are that 3 in 10 Americans own a gun. What if those 6 million armed themselves at that rate? This discussion is absurd. How could "having the ability to fight back" have anything other than a positive impact? Do you guys really think the outcome would have been identical?

Yeah, banana peels would've helped too. Maybe banana peels and guns would've prevented the Holocaust.

[iZuma]

I really like the argument of "even if jews were allowed to have guns it wouldn't have mattered because they wouldn't have been allowed to have guns."anyways, supreme court decision on az immigration: yahoo has "court upholds key parts" while cnn has "court strikes down key parts." come on guys...

[CaneBrain]

there's an immigration thread.....but, in fairness, the court struck down key parts while upholding the most controversial part. So it was a mixed bag.

[Pot Odds RAC]

Whee... a gun debate without Pot Odds getting involved.What I want to know is, if Superman knew about the Death Camps, could he have stopped the killing? The whole "What if...?" nature of this debate is a little silly. I like my guns and don't care if gun ownership would have helped the Jews. The point is, gun ownership is clearly a symbol of individual freedoms (and responsibility). It is a pretty common act of demagoguery to scream about the Nazi limitation of personal freedoms and ultimately the Holocaust in order to incite people's emotions regarding gun ownership in the US today.

[iZuma]

CaneBrain, on 25 June 2012 - 07:43 AM, said:

there's an immigration thread.....but, in fairness, the court struck down key parts while upholding the most controversial part. So it was a mixed bag.

I was commenting on the fact that two news organizations are reporting the same news in completely opposite manners.

[mrdannyg]

iZuma, on 25 June 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

I really like the argument of "even if jews were allowed to have guns it wouldn't have mattered because they wouldn't have been allowed to have guns."

The premise wasn' that jews would be allowed guns, just that common gun ownership would've been allowed. a fair presumption would be that the government would still regulate, unless we're talking about some serious mad max shit.mixing logic and reality is no fun for me and you, and just hard for henry or scram amirite.

[CaneBrain]

iZuma, on 25 June 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

I was commenting on the fact that two news organizations are reporting the same news in completely opposite manners.

I think you'll find that Fox and MSNBC are constantly reporting the same news in completely opposite manners.

[iZuma]

actually right after I posted I went to both of those too and they both went for the "strike down" wording. I was surprised. pretty sure you're right for most stuff though. though really, in my experience, it isn't as much about how they report the stories, but more which stiries they choose to report that shows their bias. I hate them all.

[BaseJester]

CaneBrain, on 24 June 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

Things that happened in the 1700 and 1800s are OBVIOUSLY not predicative of what will happen if the US or Israel or Russia or whoever aims a handful of predator drones at a well armed populace with "determination".

I think you're overestimating a handful of predator drones in the context of conquering a nation.

[hblask]

CaneBrain, on 25 June 2012 - 06:11 AM, said:

This is a false example. Our goal in Afghanistan is not the same as the goal of the Germans in WW2 for the Jews. If we wanted to just kill everybody in Afghanistan, we could. Tomorrow.And yes, I think even if the Jews of Europe were armed at a normal rate for that time, the end result would have been very similar though not identical.

Your final sentence is why I don't understand the controversy over Joe the Plumbers comments. I think everyone can agree that an armed populace resists better than an unarmed populace. It seems unlikely it would've stopped the holocaust, but JtP never said that exactly (at least not from the comments I've seen). All that's left is to argue about the degree of effectiveness. Whether it would've saved 100,000 or 2 million, that's still a lot of lives spared.

[hblask]

mrdannyg, on 25 June 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

Yeah, banana peels would've helped too. Maybe banana peels and guns would've prevented the Holocaust.

This analogy didn't make sense when LLY used it, and it makes less sense to repeat it. Banana peels are not weapons, or armies would use them. Acting like the effectiveness of banana peels as a weapon of self-defense is in the same class as guns -- which the left *usually* likes to claim go around killing people all by themselves, but in this case seems to believe they are ineffective (!) -- is just silly.

[hblask]

mrdannyg, on 25 June 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

The premise wasn' that jews would be allowed guns, just that common gun ownership would've been allowed. a fair presumption would be that the government would still regulate, unless we're talking about some serious mad max shit.mixing logic and reality is no fun for me and you, and just hard for henry or scram amirite.

You just repeated the argument that mocked your illogic. "Not allowed to have guns" is gun control. So yes, you are still saying "if they weren't allowed guns, those guns they didn't have wouldn't have helped them." I have to agree with you on this tautology.

[hblask]

Jimmy Carter not happy with the civil rights violations under ObamaI guess he's starting to agree with Bill Clinton:

Quote

The Democrats are saying something like this: 'We found a big hole that we did not dig. We didn't get it filled in 21 months, but at least we quit digging. 'Give us two more years. If it doesn't work, vote us out.' -- Bill Clinton, September 2010

[mrdannyg]

hblask, on 25 June 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

This analogy didn't make sense when LLY used it, and it makes less sense to repeat it. Banana peels are not weapons, or armies would use them. Acting like the effectiveness of banana peels as a weapon of self-defense is in the same class as guns -- which the left *usually* likes to claim go around killing people all by themselves, but in this case seems to believe they are ineffective (!) -- is just silly.

hblask, on 25 June 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

You just repeated the argument that mocked your illogic. "Not allowed to have guns" is gun control. So yes, you are still saying "if they weren't allowed guns, those guns they didn't have wouldn't have helped them." I have to agree with you on this tautology.

Ah, so you and Joe the Plumber are arguing that there both would've been no gun control, and complete ideological, financial and political change, since that would've been necessary for the Jews to actually get guns in any significant way. So yes, I agree if the outstanding ideological, financial and political situation allowed the Jews more freedom and possessions, then the Holocaust could have been less effective. I mean, it is more likely that MORE people would've been killed if they brought together an army, rather than the majority of people simply running away, but whatever suits your narrative.

[LongLiveYorke]

hblask, on 25 June 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

This analogy didn't make sense when LLY used it, and it makes less sense to repeat it. Banana peels are not weapons, or armies would use them. Acting like the effectiveness of banana peels as a weapon of self-defense is in the same class as guns -- which the left *usually* likes to claim go around killing people all by themselves, but in this case seems to believe they are ineffective (!) -- is just silly.

How can you first say, "It's just a matter of effectiveness" and then dismiss the banana comment as irrelevant. Banana's are a matter of effectiveness, too.Unless you think that more lax gun control would have immediately turned families of European Jews into armed-to-the-teeth Marines, then I emphatically question the effectiveness of a mildly armed Jewish family in the face of the Blitzkrieg. But, as others have said, this is the silliest argument both for or against gun control ever. Which was another benefit of the banana comment: silliness. It works on so many levels!

[mrdannyg]

I think we can all agree that bananas are the answer. Now we just have to decide on the question.

[hblask]

CNN has officially thrown in the towel on being a news organization:

Quote

Heads should roll because of the Fast and Furious debacle. We don't need every detail of that operation to be made public in order for that to happen.If it were an isolated sting, maybe. But it is at least the third incarnation of a gun-running scheme stretching across two administrations, which means we could be pressing to open Pandora's Box. We do not want to open Pandora's Box, not about this and certainly not about a bunch of other potentially scandalous things the federal government has been involved with.

[hblask]

Those right wing loonies at MSNBC discuss Obama and the Democrats

[FCP Bob]

hblask, on 26 June 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

CNN has officially thrown in the towel on being a news organization:

You're smart enough to know the difference between a column and a news story or editorial.A column from somebody who writes a weekly column published on their website no matter how dumb doesn't mean what your headline means.

hblask, on 26 June 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

Those right wing loonies at MSNBC discuss Obama and the Democrats

I like Joe Scarborough's show in the mornings. He calls himself a fiscally conservative Republican but he isn't a wacko and they have a diverse group on the panel usually.

[hblask]

FCP Bob, on 26 June 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

You're smart enough to know the difference between a column and a news story or editorial.A column from somebody who writes a weekly column published on their website no matter how dumb doesn't mean what your headline means.

What real news organization would even publish something so stupid? "We shouldn't cover the news because it might upset some people". Really? They thought that was good enough to publish? When the story involved hundreds of deaths? Something has gone awry at CNN when an editorial like this doesn't get laughed out of the newsroom.

Quote

I like Joe Scarborough's show in the mornings. He calls himself a fiscally conservative Republican but he isn't a wacko and they have a diverse group on the panel usually.

I generally think they are OK, too, although that blonde woman is not the brightest bulb. But that's probably not why they hired her.