Ben Carson Blames Holocaust On Gun Control

[HappyJoy]

Actually Hitler deregulated gun control which was previously more strict before he came into office. With the exception of Jews owning guns which isn't really a gun control issue.

you're admitting Jews couldn't have guns, and that might have helped them defend themselves if they had them

thanks for playing!!!

I'm admitting?

I'm stating. Jews were not allowed to have guns and that is a racist law, nobody here is stating that gun control is a great idea if "those people" aren't allowed to have them. That my friend is a strawman.

Now, NYcarbineer already stated that the Jewish population wasn't large enough to overtake the German government so the point is moot on multiple fronts.

Armed civilians were powerless against the Nazis

Those who did try resisting were caught and had their whole family killed in front of them. The sniper was then cruely tortured and killed
Towns that harbored assassins were burned to the ground

Armed Jews would have found no support from their community. They would be turned in by their neighbors and would have no place to hide after shooting at the nazis

The NRA fantasy that Jews could have been saved if they were armed is idiotic

The population was unarmed....so a few people who tired to resists with hunting rifles made no difference...try a million people armed with rifles....see how that changes the equation....

The one thing all genocides have in common.....the people being murdered are completely unarmed.....

Even in Rwanda....with United Nations peacekeeping forces in the country specifically there to stop the genocide...unarmed people were hacked to death by the government and their millitias with machetes and shot by government troops...the victims..unarmed....the government had machetes ordered from out of the country to arm their people.....

So no....the people in genocides are not armed to stop them.....and they are murdered in their millions.

Sorry...hunting rifles against the German Army with modern arms and tactics would have been a massacre

Look how the French Army did against them. You want to send untrained civilians?

Of course he does.

 

[JoeB131]

Do you know any history moron? France and England could have easily defeated Germany early on, when he tested them, and violated The Treaty of Versailles, but they waited, which cost 10s of millions of lives..The Liberal mindset, be nice, maybe we'll avoid another war. Exactly the opposite is true

Uh, not really. in fact, most wars happen because someone fought a war that they shouldn't have. You keep citing WWII as an example, but you really can't come up with any others.

Here's what the British and French were REALLY thinking in 1936. They were more afraid of Stalin's Russia than Hitler's Germany. Stalin was sending agents all over the world to their colonies to stir up shit. They were instigating the working class in their countries.

They didn't stop Hitler because they saw Hitler as a foil to Stalin, who really, really scared the shit out of them.

 

[rightwinger]

Gun nuts have this fantasy that in times of need they can run out with their trusty rifle and hold off the invading hordes

In reality, a Modern Army is trained to deal with insurgents. An Army like the Nazis, Soviets or Japanese of the 1940s would not only kill you but your whole family. If you think your town would protect you, they would wipe out your entire town.

 

[Jroc]

Actually Hitler deregulated gun control which was previously more strict before he came into office. With the exception of Jews owning guns which isn't really a gun control issue.

you're admitting Jews couldn't have guns, and that might have helped them defend themselves if they had them

thanks for playing!!!

I'm admitting?

I'm stating. Jews were not allowed to have guns and that is a racist law, nobody here is stating that gun control is a great idea if "those people" aren't allowed to have them. That my friend is a strawman.

Now, NYcarbineer already stated that the Jewish population wasn't large enough to overtake the German government so the point is moot on multiple fronts.

Armed civilians were powerless against the Nazis

Those who did try resisting were caught and had their whole family killed in front of them. The sniper was then cruely tortured and killed
Towns that harbored assassins were burned to the ground

Armed Jews would have found no support from their community. They would be turned in by their neighbors and would have no place to hide after shooting at the nazis

The NRA fantasy that Jews could have been saved if they were armed is idiotic

They were slaughtered anyways you idiot...Wtf wrong with you people?

The point was, armed Jews wouldn't have made a difference. Thus Ben Carson's point was ridiculous. Maybe you should read the thread title and put the post your quoting into that context. Should be pretty obvious. .

The point is, more dead Germans, you moron..Should be pretty obvious

 

[2aguy]

A common enough and often used but totally misinformed misconception.

Under the failed Weimar Republican, control of Firearms was strict. Once Hitler and the Nazi's took control of guns was loosened, except for the Jews were strictly forbidden to own a firearm.

Yes...his nazi thugs had complete access to guns....their opponents and victims...not so much.

 

[2aguy]

Gun nuts have this fantasy that in times of need they can run out with their trusty rifle and hold off the invading hordes

In reality, a Modern Army is trained to deal with insurgents. An Army like the Nazis, Soviets or Japanese of the 1940s would not only kill you but your whole family. If you think your town would protect you, they would wipe out your entire town.

Yeah....and when you are disarmed it makes it easier......all of the countries the Germans invaded....the civilian populations were disarmed...except for Switzerland.....400,000 armed civilians ready to fight.....and they weren't invaded.

 

[2aguy]

That didn't happen in Europe to the Germans....because European countries disarmed all of their people after World War 1....trusting that the police and their governemnts would keep them safe.....and each of the following countries surrendered citizens to the Germans for murder....and those citizens were unarmed and helpless to resist....or fight their way to neutral countries not yet controlled by the germans.....

It hink you are a little confused. Most people in Europe didn't have guns because th ey didn't have a gun industry that used fear to sell products people didn't need.

But the foolishness that if only they had guns, they could have resisted.

Maybe you need to read up on the village of Lidice in what was Czechoslovakia.

It was a town that was implicated in the assassination of a top Nazi official

The Nazis went in, and leveled it to the ground. They made the men dig their own graves.

Guns wouldn't have changed that. Guns caused that.

Lidice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dipshit...France disarmed their people after World War 1 as did the rest of the countrie........and in each nazi atrocity it was committed against an unarmed civilian population....

Remember one of he primary reasons to own guns....

When your own government can't or won't protect you.

Followed closely by.....

When your government starts to kill some or all of it's people.

Switzerland was not invaded...it's population was armed....the rest of Europe was invaded and occupied...and had no weapons to fight back.......

 

[2aguy]

Actually Hitler deregulated gun control which was previously more strict before he came into office. With the exception of Jews owning guns which isn't really a gun control issue.

you're admitting Jews couldn't have guns, and that might have helped them defend themselves if they had them

thanks for playing!!!

I'm admitting?

I'm stating. Jews were not allowed to have guns and that is a racist law, nobody here is stating that gun control is a great idea if "those people" aren't allowed to have them. That my friend is a strawman.

Now, NYcarbineer already stated that the Jewish population wasn't large enough to overtake the German government so the point is moot on multiple fronts.

Armed civilians were powerless against the Nazis

Those who did try resisting were caught and had their whole family killed in front of them. The sniper was then cruely tortured and killed
Towns that harbored assassins were burned to the ground

Armed Jews would have found no support from their community. They would be turned in by their neighbors and would have no place to hide after shooting at the nazis

The NRA fantasy that Jews could have been saved if they were armed is idiotic

The population was unarmed....so a few people who tired to resists with hunting rifles made no difference...try a million people armed with rifles....see how that changes the equation....

The one thing all genocides have in common.....the people being murdered are completely unarmed.....

Even in Rwanda....with United Nations peacekeeping forces in the country specifically there to stop the genocide...unarmed people were hacked to death by the government and their millitias with machetes and shot by government troops...the victims..unarmed....the government had machetes ordered from out of the country to arm their people.....

So no....the people in genocides are not armed to stop them.....and they are murdered in their millions.

Sorry...hunting rifles against the German Army with modern arms and tactics would have been a massacre

Look how the French Army did against them. You want to send untrained civilians?

They had few and not enough...why do you morons think we fight to keep our AR-15s and the other rifles.....citizens should have the same access to the small arms of the military and police to avoid these mass murders that we see around the world....

The one thing they all have in common.....the civilians have no weapons to fight back...in every single genocide...that is the lesson you twits fail to learn.

 

[2aguy]

Do you know any history moron? France and England could have easily defeated Germany early on, when he tested them, and violated The Treaty of Versailles, but they waited, which cost 10s of millions of lives..The Liberal mindset, be nice, maybe we'll avoid another war. Exactly the opposite is true

Uh, not really. in fact, most wars happen because someone fought a war that they shouldn't have. You keep citing WWII as an example, but you really can't come up with any others.

Here's what the British and French were REALLY thinking in 1936. They were more afraid of Stalin's Russia than Hitler's Germany. Stalin was sending agents all over the world to their colonies to stir up shit. They were instigating the working class in their countries.

They didn't stop Hitler because they saw Hitler as a foil to Stalin, who really, really scared the shit out of them.

No....they were all pacified by the horrors of World War 1 dipshit.....and they all decided that anything was better than another World War...and hitler knew this about them and exploited it....read some history moron.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes...his nazi thugs had complete access to guns....their opponents and victims...not so much.

again, your average German who wasn't a Nazi had no problem getting a gun. and those average Germans used those guns to keep fighting for Hitler until the country fell to invading armies.

If it took most of the rest of the world six years to beat Nazi Germany with tanks and bombers and battleships, what did you really think a couple of malcontents with guns were going to do?

 

[JoeB131]

No....they were all pacified by the horrors of World War 1 dipshit.....and they all decided that anything was better than another World War...and hitler knew this about them and exploited it....read some history moron.

Yeah, that's a nice, post war excuse for why they didn't have 20/20 hindsight.

Reality- the wealthy of France and Britain and the United States didn't really have a problem with Hitler. Hitler was making Europe safe for big corporations, which is why IBM and Ford and Coca-Cola had no issues doing business in Hitler's Germany up until the War.

IBM even helped Hitler come up with the card-coding system they used to run the Holocaust.

IBM and the Holocaust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hitler wasn't the problem to big corporations, it was that dirty stinkin' commie bastard Stalin.

Until the world needed Stalin to save them from Hitler. Nope, sorry, wasn't your Grandpa who was at D-Day who saved the world from the Nazis, it was a dirty commie named Ivan.

 

[JoeB131]

Dipshit...France disarmed their people after World War 1 as did the rest of the countrie........and in each nazi atrocity it was committed against an unarmed civilian population....

Actually, there wasn't widespread gun ownership in France before WWI, either. Mass manufacture of guns is actually a pretty modern phenomenon. The reason why you have a gun industry in this country pushing to arm all the Cleetuses and Billy-bobs in this country is the government created a demand for them that eventually fell off.

Now, it is true that after WWI, most of the world DID try to limit the arms race on things like battleships and bombers because they were largely bankrupting themselves buying them. kind of like the US is doing today.

Remember one of he primary reasons to own guns....

When your own government can't or won't protect you.

Followed closely by.....

When your government starts to kill some or all of it's people.

Switzerland was not invaded...it's population was armed....the rest of Europe was invaded and occupied...and had no weapons to fight back.......

Switzerland wasn't invaded because it was a nice safe bank for all sides to put their blood money.

You really, really don't get this at all, do you? You've been a tool of big corporations pretty much all of your life, going out and buying enough guns to fight the Zombies because a big-corporation tells you that will make you "Safe".

The Holocaust happened because the Christian World prior to 1945, really, really, really fucking hated Jews.

And no one had a problem with what Hitler was doing to them before or during the war. It was when Hitler started threatening the profits of big corporations that everyone said, "Hey, we need to do something about that Hitler Guy."

 

[rightwinger]

Gun nuts have this fantasy that in times of need they can run out with their trusty rifle and hold off the invading hordes

In reality, a Modern Army is trained to deal with insurgents. An Army like the Nazis, Soviets or Japanese of the 1940s would not only kill you but your whole family. If you think your town would protect you, they would wipe out your entire town.

Yeah....and when you are disarmed it makes it easier......all of the countries the Germans invaded....the civilian populations were disarmed...except for Switzerland.....400,000 armed civilians ready to fight.....and they weren't invaded.

Russia killed four million Germans. Armed civilians would be a speed bump. We saw how nazis responded to civilian resistance and it wasn't pretty. They killed not only you, but your family and maybe 100 random people from your town

Armed resistance from Jews would have made it easier for the Nazis. It would have enabled the propaganda machine to kick in full throttle by painting the Jews as dangerous threats to peaceful Germans. Any compassion for victimized Jews from the general population would be gone

 

[JoeB131]

Armed resistance from Jews would have made it easier for the Nazis. It would have enabled the propaganda machine to kick in full throttle by painting the Jews as dangerous threats to peaceful Germans. Any compassion for victimized Jews from the general population would be gone

exactly. Everyone forgets that the Nazi Marching song was written by a guy named Horst Wessel who was shot by a Jewish Communist. Goebbels made the guy into a hero.

 

[rightwinger]

Armed resistance from Jews would have made it easier for the Nazis. It would have enabled the propaganda machine to kick in full throttle by painting the Jews as dangerous threats to peaceful Germans. Any compassion for victimized Jews from the general population would be gone

exactly. Everyone forgets that the Nazi Marching song was written by a guy named Horst Wessel who was shot by a Jewish Communist. Goebbels made the guy into a hero.

The tendency of conservatives to blame the victims is despicable. Jews died because they were unwilling to fight for themselves. They ignore the brutality directed at those who did fight and how any civilian resistance was quickly and violently crushed

After WWII, our black soldiers returned to a country that engaged in terrorist attacks against the black population. These attacks included lynching, beatings, firebombs and murder. These attacks were condoned by the government
Should our blacks have used second amendment remedies to fight against these attacks?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Armed resistance from Jews would have made it easier for the Nazis. It would have enabled the propaganda machine to kick in full throttle by painting the Jews as dangerous threats to peaceful Germans. Any compassion for victimized Jews from the general population would be gone

exactly. Everyone forgets that the Nazi Marching song was written by a guy named Horst Wessel who was shot by a Jewish Communist. Goebbels made the guy into a hero.

The tendency of conservatives to blame the victims is despicable. Jews died because they were unwilling to fight for themselves. They ignore the brutality directed at those who did fight and how any civilian resistance was quickly and violently crushed

After WWII, our black soldiers returned to a country that engaged in terrorist attacks against the black population. These attacks included lynching, beatings, firebombs and murder. These attacks were condoned by the government
Should our blacks have used second amendment remedies to fight against these attacks?

Trying to implicate the Jews in their own destruction is just one more nuance of anti-Semitism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Armed resistance from Jews would have made it easier for the Nazis. It would have enabled the propaganda machine to kick in full throttle by painting the Jews as dangerous threats to peaceful Germans. Any compassion for victimized Jews from the general population would be gone

exactly. Everyone forgets that the Nazi Marching song was written by a guy named Horst Wessel who was shot by a Jewish Communist. Goebbels made the guy into a hero.

The tendency of conservatives to blame the victims is despicable. Jews died because they were unwilling to fight for themselves. They ignore the brutality directed at those who did fight and how any civilian resistance was quickly and violently crushed

After WWII, our black soldiers returned to a country that engaged in terrorist attacks against the black population. These attacks included lynching, beatings, firebombs and murder. These attacks were condoned by the government
Should our blacks have used second amendment remedies to fight against these attacks?

I've asked more than once in the past whether John Brown was an American hero or a terrorist,

for having tried to start an armed rebellion among the slaves - for which of course he was hanged.

Stunned silence is the most popular response.

 

[rightwinger]

Armed resistance from Jews would have made it easier for the Nazis. It would have enabled the propaganda machine to kick in full throttle by painting the Jews as dangerous threats to peaceful Germans. Any compassion for victimized Jews from the general population would be gone

exactly. Everyone forgets that the Nazi Marching song was written by a guy named Horst Wessel who was shot by a Jewish Communist. Goebbels made the guy into a hero.

The tendency of conservatives to blame the victims is despicable. Jews died because they were unwilling to fight for themselves. They ignore the brutality directed at those who did fight and how any civilian resistance was quickly and violently crushed

After WWII, our black soldiers returned to a country that engaged in terrorist attacks against the black population. These attacks included lynching, beatings, firebombs and murder. These attacks were condoned by the government
Should our blacks have used second amendment remedies to fight against these attacks?

I've asked more than once in the past whether John Brown was an American hero or a terrorist,

for having tried to start an armed rebellion among the slaves - for which of course he was hanged.

Stunned silence is the most popular response.

Ask Ben Carson whether Americas black population should have used armed rebellion to fight against the atrocities being directed at them

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Anti-Defamation League says these sorts of comments are "historically inaccurate and offensive."

Ben Carson, a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, blamed the Holocaust on Nazi gun control in an interview on CNN Thursday.

Host Wolf Blitzer read a section from Carson's book, A More Perfect Union, in which Carson writes:

German citizens were disarmed by their government in the late 1930s, and by the mid-1940s Hitler's regime had mercilessly slaughtered six million Jews and numerous others whom they considered inferior ... Through a combination of removing guns and disseminating deceitful propaganda, the Nazis were able to carry out their evil intentions with relatively little resistance.​

"I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed," Carson elaborated in the interview. "There's a reason these dictatorial people take the guns first."

The Anti-Defamation League, which monitors and responds to anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry, has long opposed the use of Nazi comparisons in the U.S. gun control debate. "The idea that supporters of gun control are doing something akin to what Hitler’s Germany did to strip citizens of guns in the run-up to the Second World War is historically inaccurate and offensive, especially to Holocaust survivors and their families," Abraham Foxman, the ADL's national director at the time, said in 2013.

Conservatives have a history of comparing gun control advocates to Hitler and the Nazis. The ADL's 2013 comments were provoked by The Drudge Report's choice to use an image of Hitler to illustrate news that President Barack Obama was pursuing limited gun control measures after 20 first-graders and six school staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, were murdered by a gunman.

Many historians disagree with the idea that armed German Jews could have prevented the Holocaust. And as Alex Seitz-Wald, a journalist then writing for Salon, explained in 2013, the full story of Nazi gun regulation is more complicated than Carson and his ilk might like:

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them....

[Hitler's] "1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.​

The 1938 law did ban Jews from owning guns. But as the ADL explained in 2013, "the small number of personal firearms in the hands of the small number of Germany’s Jews (about 214,000) remaining in Germany in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state," which eventually conquered most of Europe.

There was some armed Jewish resistance to the power of the Nazi war machine. But it often ended in death for the Jews involved.

In January 1943, Jews in the Warsaw ghetto rose up against the Nazis. Some 13,000 Jews died in the uprising. (They killed around 20 Nazis.) The rest were deported to concentration and extermination camps, where most were murdered.

My grandfather and grandmother had escaped from the ghetto before the uprising and gone into hiding in the countryside. They survived.

More: Ben Carson Blames Holocaust On Gun Control

Ben Carson should learn some factual history.

^ racist

 

[NYcarbineer]

Armed resistance from Jews would have made it easier for the Nazis. It would have enabled the propaganda machine to kick in full throttle by painting the Jews as dangerous threats to peaceful Germans. Any compassion for victimized Jews from the general population would be gone

exactly. Everyone forgets that the Nazi Marching song was written by a guy named Horst Wessel who was shot by a Jewish Communist. Goebbels made the guy into a hero.

The tendency of conservatives to blame the victims is despicable. Jews died because they were unwilling to fight for themselves. They ignore the brutality directed at those who did fight and how any civilian resistance was quickly and violently crushed

After WWII, our black soldiers returned to a country that engaged in terrorist attacks against the black population. These attacks included lynching, beatings, firebombs and murder. These attacks were condoned by the government
Should our blacks have used second amendment remedies to fight against these attacks?

I've asked more than once in the past whether John Brown was an American hero or a terrorist,

for having tried to start an armed rebellion among the slaves - for which of course he was hanged.

Stunned silence is the most popular response.

Ask Ben Carson whether Americas black population should have used armed rebellion to fight against the atrocities being directed at them

There are lots of things the media won't ask Ben Carson, starting with why he thinks Obamacare is worse than 9/11 (or pick some other major disaster)

since he said Obamacare was the worst thing to happen to this country since slavery.