CDZ Is gun control a prerequisite for mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing....

[2aguy]

My answer....yes.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/does_gun_control_lead_to_genocide.html

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million dissidents were rounded up and murdered.



In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Christian Armenians were rounded up and exterminated.

According to Stephen Halbrook, the "Armenian Genocide Didn't Happen by Accident." In fact, "Ottoman law made it a crime to possess a firearm without government permission. The Armenians, as British traveler H. F. B. Lynch wrote in 1901, were 'rigorously prohibited from possessing firearms.'" Then, in 1915, the "Ottomans also decreed that any firearms the Armenians possessed were to be surrendered to the government. Failing to do so, the decree said, 'will be very severely punished when the arms are discovered.'"

In 1938, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others were rounded up and exterminated.


So the liberal Weimar Republic began gun control "in the hope of taking back the streets from the right- and left-wing brawlers of the 1920s and 1930s." But when the National Socialists (Nazis) took over, it suited them that Germany's laws regarding gun ownership were left to the administrative discretion of the state. The only change that the Nazis made "was to forbid Jews from owning guns and exempting members of the SA and other Nazi party officials from the law's strictures" (Beck 109.)

There is more. In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were rounded up and exterminated. These rules were based on Articles 186-7, Penal Code; Article 9, Security Law.

In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million educated people were rounded up and exterminated.

According to the American Civil Rights Union, "[t]he Khmer Rouge never bothered to write their own gun control laws, relying instead on a number of statutes left over from the French colonial government. A series of 1956 laws, Articles 322-28 of the Penal Code, required licenses for 'guns, owners, ammunition, and transactions,' complete with photo ID and fingerprints." In fact, "[g]un confiscation was at the top of the agenda for the Khmer Rouge. As soon as the Khmer Rouge took power, they immediately set out to disarm the populace."

In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1981 to 1984, 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians were rounded up and exterminated.

"Gun control is predicated on the belief that private citizens cannot be trusted with firearms." Instead, it is the "state [that] should have a 'monopoly on violence' because it is less violent than individuals." Consequently, "firearms should be taken away from private citizens because only the state is responsible enough to handle them."

But "states are statistically far more violent than individuals." After all, in the 20th century alone, millions of people died at the hands of their own governments.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Yes!

They can't be a-killing people if they get shot in the process.

 

[LOki]

There is only one motive in the desire to see the targets of criminal violence undefended.

There is only one kind of person who desires to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed.

The people who desire to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed are the problem; they are the entire problem, and they are making their intentions clear.

Lock them up. Get rid of them--the Michael Bloombergs, the Shannon Watts', the Diane Feinsteins, the Nancy Pelosis, the Hillary Clintons, the Gabrielle Giffords', etc..., and the rest who would see the targets of their violence disarmed and undefended--and you'll see the end of these atrocities.

It shouldn't be that difficult, as they are remorseless criminals, and their crimes are manifest:

18 USC § 241
18 USC § 242

 

[2aguy]

And notice too....... the German socialists in the 1940s murdered Europeans from all over Europe, not just German Jews and political enemies...... and those countries had disarmed their people too.....the only country not to be occupied and have their people shipped off to death camps? Switzerland...where they had 435,000 armed citizens with military rifles ready to fight any invasion..........

 

[Toronado3800]

And notice too....... the German socialists in the 1940s murdered Europeans from all over Europe, not just German Jews and political enemies...... and those countries had disarmed their people too.....the only country not to be occupied and have their people shipped off to death camps? Switzerland...where they had 435,000 armed citizens with military rifles ready to fight any invasion..........

Are we talking about a different group than the NAZI's?

Your stat on Switzerland has a couple logical flaws in it.



That's a long debate as interesting as where the racists in America went after the 68/72 elections.

 

[2aguy]

And notice too....... the German socialists in the 1940s murdered Europeans from all over Europe, not just German Jews and political enemies...... and those countries had disarmed their people too.....the only country not to be occupied and have their people shipped off to death camps? Switzerland...where they had 435,000 armed citizens with military rifles ready to fight any invasion..........

Are we talking about a different group than the NAZI's?

Your stat on Switzerland has a couple logical flaws in it.



That's a long debate as interesting as where the racists in America went after the 68/72 elections.

The racists stayed in the democrat party....as you guys have been shown over and over again....

 

[Toronado3800]

And notice too....... the German socialists in the 1940s murdered Europeans from all over Europe, not just German Jews and political enemies...... and those countries had disarmed their people too.....the only country not to be occupied and have their people shipped off to death camps? Switzerland...where they had 435,000 armed citizens with military rifles ready to fight any invasion..........

Are we talking about a different group than the NAZI's?

Your stat on Switzerland has a couple logical flaws in it.



That's a long debate as interesting as where the racists in America went after the 68/72 elections.

The racists stayed in the democrat party....as you guys have been shown over and over again....

Well, I suppose what is important is you sound as if you are against the racists.

On a mildly humorous note, if Archie Bunker were alive today what party would he belong to?

You can include George Jefferson in that to just to be fair.

Gotta remember, at some point the Republicans BECAME the states rights party. It probably was not the day Lincoln liberally decided states did not have the right to succeed. It was probably in the mid 60's when the only President the Republicans had since the Hoovervilles of the 1920's was Eisenhower, the man of the Military Industrial Complex speech. At one point it was a run of 4 for Roosevelt, 2 Truman, (2 Eisenhower), 1 Kennedy, 1 Johnson so 8-2 was the score after the Hoovervilles. Then in 68 why did Nixon win?

United States presidential election, 1968 - Wikipedia

The incumbent Johnson decided not to run
Bobby Kennedy was killed.
There were riots at the Democratic Convention.
The Democrats split and in the south voted for the last 3rd party candidate to win a state (5 btw!).

All that and Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey 31,783,783 to 31,271,839 with 9,901,118 votes going to the American Racist Party, er American Independent. (one can debate the electoral college results here but man, Nixon losing by 10,000,000 votes and winning the Presidency would have been interesting in the violent Kent State era)

I know about the civil rights votes of the 60's. I know about Byrd, and Wallace vs Thurmond. The Republicans did well on civil rights up to and in the 60's. Its the 70's and 80's which polluted the GOP with the middle aged well off white racists who voted anti-hippie, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, and anti-welfare.

 

[2aguy]

And notice too....... the German socialists in the 1940s murdered Europeans from all over Europe, not just German Jews and political enemies...... and those countries had disarmed their people too.....the only country not to be occupied and have their people shipped off to death camps? Switzerland...where they had 435,000 armed citizens with military rifles ready to fight any invasion..........

Are we talking about a different group than the NAZI's?

Your stat on Switzerland has a couple logical flaws in it.



That's a long debate as interesting as where the racists in America went after the 68/72 elections.

The racists stayed in the democrat party....as you guys have been shown over and over again....

Well, I suppose what is important is you sound as if you are against the racists.

On a mildly humorous note, if Archie Bunker were alive today what party would he belong to?

You can include George Jefferson in that to just to be fair.

Gotta remember, at some point the Republicans BECAME the states rights party. It probably was not the day Lincoln liberally decided states did not have the right to succeed. It was probably in the mid 60's when the only President the Republicans had since the Hoovervilles of the 1920's was Eisenhower, the man of the Military Industrial Complex speech. At one point it was a run of 4 for Roosevelt, 2 Truman, (2 Eisenhower), 1 Kennedy, 1 Johnson so 8-2 was the score after the Hoovervilles. Then in 68 why did Nixon win?

United States presidential election, 1968 - Wikipedia

The incumbent Johnson decided not to run
Bobby Kennedy was killed.
There were riots at the Democratic Convention.
The Democrats split and in the south voted for the last 3rd party candidate to win a state (5 btw!).

All that and Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey 31,783,783 to 31,271,839 with 9,901,118 votes going to the American Racist Party, er American Independent. (one can debate the electoral college results here but man, Nixon losing by 10,000,000 votes and winning the Presidency would have been interesting in the violent Kent State era)

I know about the civil rights votes of the 60's. I know about Byrd, and Wallace vs Thurmond. The Republicans did well on civil rights up to and in the 60's. Its the 70's and 80's which polluted the GOP with the middle aged well off white racists who voted anti-hippie, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, and anti-welfare.

States Rights is not a racist issue.....you need to engage your brain on this. States Rights is neutral, it is why you are supporting States Rights that determines if you are a racist....

Democrats supported States Rights to violate the human Rights of Black Americans..... Conservatives support some actions by the States to protect the Civil Rights of all Americans....

It is called checks and balances...you need to understand that concept...When the states violate the Rights of Americans, like the democrats did against blacks.....the Feds have to step in....when the Feds violate the Rights of AMericans, then the States have to step in...

There was no switch in racism...the democrats are still the racist party, their entire belief system is based on racism....

 

[2aguy]

And notice too....... the German socialists in the 1940s murdered Europeans from all over Europe, not just German Jews and political enemies...... and those countries had disarmed their people too.....the only country not to be occupied and have their people shipped off to death camps? Switzerland...where they had 435,000 armed citizens with military rifles ready to fight any invasion..........

Are we talking about a different group than the NAZI's?

Your stat on Switzerland has a couple logical flaws in it.



That's a long debate as interesting as where the racists in America went after the 68/72 elections.

The racists stayed in the democrat party....as you guys have been shown over and over again....

Well, I suppose what is important is you sound as if you are against the racists.

On a mildly humorous note, if Archie Bunker were alive today what party would he belong to?

You can include George Jefferson in that to just to be fair.

Gotta remember, at some point the Republicans BECAME the states rights party. It probably was not the day Lincoln liberally decided states did not have the right to succeed. It was probably in the mid 60's when the only President the Republicans had since the Hoovervilles of the 1920's was Eisenhower, the man of the Military Industrial Complex speech. At one point it was a run of 4 for Roosevelt, 2 Truman, (2 Eisenhower), 1 Kennedy, 1 Johnson so 8-2 was the score after the Hoovervilles. Then in 68 why did Nixon win?

United States presidential election, 1968 - Wikipedia

The incumbent Johnson decided not to run
Bobby Kennedy was killed.
There were riots at the Democratic Convention.
The Democrats split and in the south voted for the last 3rd party candidate to win a state (5 btw!).

All that and Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey 31,783,783 to 31,271,839 with 9,901,118 votes going to the American Racist Party, er American Independent. (one can debate the electoral college results here but man, Nixon losing by 10,000,000 votes and winning the Presidency would have been interesting in the violent Kent State era)

I know about the civil rights votes of the 60's. I know about Byrd, and Wallace vs Thurmond. The Republicans did well on civil rights up to and in the 60's. Its the 70's and 80's which polluted the GOP with the middle aged well off white racists who voted anti-hippie, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, and anti-welfare.

You are wrong...the democrats fought Civil Rights for Blacks up to the point they could no longer keep them from voting....then lyndon johnson, the racist, member of the Texas klan, knew that the democrats needed to court the black vote to have any chance at power.....so he started the Great Society to buy their votes...

The Myth of the Racist Republicans

Here ....learn something...

 

[2aguy]

And notice too....... the German socialists in the 1940s murdered Europeans from all over Europe, not just German Jews and political enemies...... and those countries had disarmed their people too.....the only country not to be occupied and have their people shipped off to death camps? Switzerland...where they had 435,000 armed citizens with military rifles ready to fight any invasion..........

Are we talking about a different group than the NAZI's?

Your stat on Switzerland has a couple logical flaws in it.



That's a long debate as interesting as where the racists in America went after the 68/72 elections.

The racists stayed in the democrat party....as you guys have been shown over and over again....

Well, I suppose what is important is you sound as if you are against the racists.

On a mildly humorous note, if Archie Bunker were alive today what party would he belong to?

You can include George Jefferson in that to just to be fair.

Gotta remember, at some point the Republicans BECAME the states rights party. It probably was not the day Lincoln liberally decided states did not have the right to succeed. It was probably in the mid 60's when the only President the Republicans had since the Hoovervilles of the 1920's was Eisenhower, the man of the Military Industrial Complex speech. At one point it was a run of 4 for Roosevelt, 2 Truman, (2 Eisenhower), 1 Kennedy, 1 Johnson so 8-2 was the score after the Hoovervilles. Then in 68 why did Nixon win?

United States presidential election, 1968 - Wikipedia

The incumbent Johnson decided not to run
Bobby Kennedy was killed.
There were riots at the Democratic Convention.
The Democrats split and in the south voted for the last 3rd party candidate to win a state (5 btw!).

All that and Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey 31,783,783 to 31,271,839 with 9,901,118 votes going to the American Racist Party, er American Independent. (one can debate the electoral college results here but man, Nixon losing by 10,000,000 votes and winning the Presidency would have been interesting in the violent Kent State era)

I know about the civil rights votes of the 60's. I know about Byrd, and Wallace vs Thurmond. The Republicans did well on civil rights up to and in the 60's. Its the 70's and 80's which polluted the GOP with the middle aged well off white racists who voted anti-hippie, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, and anti-welfare.

And more....

Nixon’s Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community | Black Quill and Ink

Believe it or not, the entire myth was created by an unknown editor at the New York Times who didn’t do his job and read a story he was given to edit.

On May 17, 1970, the New York Times published an article written by James Boyd. The headline, written by our unknown editor, was “Nixon’s Southern Strategy: It’s All in the Charts.”

The article was about a very controversial political analyst named Kevin Phillips. Phillips believed that everyone voted according to their ethnic background, not according to their individual beliefs. And all a candidate had to do is frame their message according to whatever moves a particular ethnic group.

Phillips offered his services to the Nixon campaign. But if our unknown editor had bothered to read the story completely, he would’ve seen that Phillip’s and his theory was completely rejected!

Boyd wrote in his article, “Though Phillips’s ideas for an aggressive anti-liberal campaign strategy that would hasten defection of the working-class democrats to the republicans did not prevail in the 1968 campaign, he won the respect John Mitchell.” (Mitchell was a well-known Washington insider at the time).

A lazy, negligent editor partially read the story. And wrote a headline for it that attributed Nixon’s campaign success–to a plan he rejected.

In fact, Phillips isn’t even mentioned in Nixon’s memoirs.

Is all of this the result of a negligent copy editor at the New York Times? Or did they purposely work with the Democrat Party to create this myth? That has crossed my mind and it’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.

 

[2aguy]

And notice too....... the German socialists in the 1940s murdered Europeans from all over Europe, not just German Jews and political enemies...... and those countries had disarmed their people too.....the only country not to be occupied and have their people shipped off to death camps? Switzerland...where they had 435,000 armed citizens with military rifles ready to fight any invasion..........

Are we talking about a different group than the NAZI's?

Your stat on Switzerland has a couple logical flaws in it.



That's a long debate as interesting as where the racists in America went after the 68/72 elections.

The racists stayed in the democrat party....as you guys have been shown over and over again....

Well, I suppose what is important is you sound as if you are against the racists.

On a mildly humorous note, if Archie Bunker were alive today what party would he belong to?

You can include George Jefferson in that to just to be fair.

Gotta remember, at some point the Republicans BECAME the states rights party. It probably was not the day Lincoln liberally decided states did not have the right to succeed. It was probably in the mid 60's when the only President the Republicans had since the Hoovervilles of the 1920's was Eisenhower, the man of the Military Industrial Complex speech. At one point it was a run of 4 for Roosevelt, 2 Truman, (2 Eisenhower), 1 Kennedy, 1 Johnson so 8-2 was the score after the Hoovervilles. Then in 68 why did Nixon win?

United States presidential election, 1968 - Wikipedia

The incumbent Johnson decided not to run
Bobby Kennedy was killed.
There were riots at the Democratic Convention.
The Democrats split and in the south voted for the last 3rd party candidate to win a state (5 btw!).

All that and Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey 31,783,783 to 31,271,839 with 9,901,118 votes going to the American Racist Party, er American Independent. (one can debate the electoral college results here but man, Nixon losing by 10,000,000 votes and winning the Presidency would have been interesting in the violent Kent State era)

I know about the civil rights votes of the 60's. I know about Byrd, and Wallace vs Thurmond. The Republicans did well on civil rights up to and in the 60's. Its the 70's and 80's which polluted the GOP with the middle aged well off white racists who voted anti-hippie, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, and anti-welfare.

And more facts.....

blackquillandink.com -&nbspThis website is for sale! -&nbspblackquillandink Resources and Information.


Nixon’s Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community | Black Quill and Ink


Ken Raymond
Jun 2011

Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, which the democrats say is the reason black people had to support them during the 1960′s–is a lie.

And it’s probably the biggest lie that’s been told to the blacks since Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government after getting the NAACP to support him.
After talking with black voters across the country about why they overwhelmingly supports democrats, the common answer that’s emerges is the Southern Strategy.

I’ve heard of the Southern Strategy too. But since it doesn’t make a difference in how I decide to vote, I never bothered to research it. But apparently it still influences how many African Americans vote today. That makes it worth investigating.

For those that might be unfamiliar with the Southern Strategy, I’ll briefly review the story. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, most blacks registered as democrats and it’s been that way ever since.

And that doesn’t make any sense when you consider the fact that it was the democrats that established, and fought for, Jim Crow laws and segregation in the first place. And the republicans have a very noble history of fighting for the civil rights of blacks.

The reason black people moved to the democrats, given by media pundits and educational institutions for the decades, is that when republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, he employed a racist plan that’s now infamously called the Southern Strategy.

The Southern Strategy basically means Nixon allegedly used hidden code words that appealed to the racists within the Democrat party and throughout the south. This secret language caused a seismic shift in the electoral landscape that moved the evil racist democrats into the republican camp and the noble-hearted republicans into the democrat camp.

And here’s what I found, Nixon did not use a plan to appeal to racist white voters.

First, let’s look at the presidential candidates of 1968. Richard Nixon was the republican candidate; Hubert Humphrey was the democrat nominee; and George Wallace was a third party candidate.

Remember George Wallace? Wallace was the democrat governor of Alabama from 1963 until 1967. And it was Wallace that ordered the Eugene “Bull” Connor, and the police department, to attack Dr. Martin Luther King

Jr. and 2,500 protesters in Montgomery , Alabama in 1965. And it was Governor Wallace that ordered a blockade at the admissions office at the University of Alabama to prevent blacks from enrolling in 1963.

Governor Wallace was a true racist and a determined segregationist. And he ran as the nominee from the American Independent Party, which was he founded.

Richard Nixon wrote about the 1968 campaign in his book RN: the Memoirs of Richard Nixon originally published in 1978.

In his book, Nixon wrote this about campaigning in the south, “The deep south had to be virtually conceded to George Wallace. I could not match him there without compromising on civil rights, which I would not do.”

The media coverage of the 1968 presidential race also showed that Nixon was in favor of the Civil Rights and would not compromise on that issue. For example, in an article published in theWashington Post on September 15, 1968 headlined “Nixon Sped Integration, Wallace says” Wallace declared that Nixon agreed with Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren and played a role in ”the destruction of public school system.” Wallace pledged to restore the school system, in the same article, by giving it back to the states ”lock, stock, and barrel.”

This story, as well as Nixon’s memoirs and other news stories during that campaign, shows that Nixon was very clear about his position on civil rights. And if Nixon was used code words only racists could hear, evidently George Wallace couldn’t hear it.

Among the southern states, George Wallace won Arkansas , Mississippi , Alabama , Georgia and Louisiana . Nixon won North Carolina , South Carolina , Florida , Virginia , and Tennessee . Winning those states were part of Nixon’s plan.

“I would not concede the Carolina ‘s, Florida , or Virginia or the states around the rim of the south,”Nixon wrote. ”These states were a part of my plan.”

At that time, the entire southern region was the poorest in the country. The south consistently lagged behind the rest of the United States in income. And according to the

“U.S. Regional Growth and Convergence,” by Kris James Mitchener and Ian W. McLean, per capita income for southerners was almost half as much as it was for Americans in other regions.

Nixon won those states strictly on economic issues. He focused on increasing tariffs on foreign imports to protect the manufacturing and agriculture industries of those states. Some southern elected officials agreed to support him for the sake of their economies, including South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond.

“I had been consulting privately with Thurmond for several months and I was convinced that he’d join my campaign if he were satisfied on the two issues of paramount concern to him: national defense and tariffs against textile imports to protect South Carolina ‘s position in the industry.”Nixon wrote in his memoirs.

In fact, Nixon made it clear to the southern elected officials that he would not compromise on the civil rights issue.

“On civil rights, Thurmond knew my position was very different from his,” Nixon wrote. “I was for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and he was against it. Although he disagreed with me, he respected my sincerity and candor.”

The same scenario played out among elected officials and voters in other southern states won by Nixon. They laid their feelings aside and supported him because of his economic platform’”not because Nixon sent messages on a frequency only racists can hear.

 

[2aguy]

And notice too....... the German socialists in the 1940s murdered Europeans from all over Europe, not just German Jews and political enemies...... and those countries had disarmed their people too.....the only country not to be occupied and have their people shipped off to death camps? Switzerland...where they had 435,000 armed citizens with military rifles ready to fight any invasion..........

Are we talking about a different group than the NAZI's?

Your stat on Switzerland has a couple logical flaws in it.



That's a long debate as interesting as where the racists in America went after the 68/72 elections.

The racists stayed in the democrat party....as you guys have been shown over and over again....

Well, I suppose what is important is you sound as if you are against the racists.

On a mildly humorous note, if Archie Bunker were alive today what party would he belong to?

You can include George Jefferson in that to just to be fair.

Gotta remember, at some point the Republicans BECAME the states rights party. It probably was not the day Lincoln liberally decided states did not have the right to succeed. It was probably in the mid 60's when the only President the Republicans had since the Hoovervilles of the 1920's was Eisenhower, the man of the Military Industrial Complex speech. At one point it was a run of 4 for Roosevelt, 2 Truman, (2 Eisenhower), 1 Kennedy, 1 Johnson so 8-2 was the score after the Hoovervilles. Then in 68 why did Nixon win?

United States presidential election, 1968 - Wikipedia

The incumbent Johnson decided not to run
Bobby Kennedy was killed.
There were riots at the Democratic Convention.
The Democrats split and in the south voted for the last 3rd party candidate to win a state (5 btw!).

All that and Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey 31,783,783 to 31,271,839 with 9,901,118 votes going to the American Racist Party, er American Independent. (one can debate the electoral college results here but man, Nixon losing by 10,000,000 votes and winning the Presidency would have been interesting in the violent Kent State era)

I know about the civil rights votes of the 60's. I know about Byrd, and Wallace vs Thurmond. The Republicans did well on civil rights up to and in the 60's. Its the 70's and 80's which polluted the GOP with the middle aged well off white racists who voted anti-hippie, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, and anti-welfare.

And more....

Nixon’s Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community | Black Quill and Ink

Believe it or not, the entire myth was created by an unknown editor at the New York Times who didn’t do his job and read a story he was given to edit.

On May 17, 1970, the New York Times published an article written by James Boyd. The headline, written by our unknown editor, was “Nixon’s Southern Strategy: It’s All in the Charts.”

The article was about a very controversial political analyst named Kevin Phillips. Phillips believed that everyone voted according to their ethnic background, not according to their individual beliefs. And all a candidate had to do is frame their message according to whatever moves a particular ethnic group.

Phillips offered his services to the Nixon campaign. But if our unknown editor had bothered to read the story completely, he would’ve seen that Phillip’s and his theory was completely rejected!

Boyd wrote in his article, “Though Phillips’s ideas for an aggressive anti-liberal campaign strategy that would hasten defection of the working-class democrats to the republicans did not prevail in the 1968 campaign, he won the respect John Mitchell.” (Mitchell was a well-known Washington insider at the time).

A lazy, negligent editor partially read the story. And wrote a headline for it that attributed Nixon’s campaign success–to a plan he rejected.

In fact, Phillips isn’t even mentioned in Nixon’s memoirs.

Is all of this the result of a negligent copy editor at the New York Times? Or did they purposely work with the Democrat Party to create this myth? That has crossed my mind and it’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.

Here is the article cited in that link......It will not copy but it is page 4 at the bottom of the first column....you can see for yourself the quote...

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf

 

[Toronado3800]

And notice too....... the German socialists in the 1940s murdered Europeans from all over Europe, not just German Jews and political enemies...... and those countries had disarmed their people too.....the only country not to be occupied and have their people shipped off to death camps? Switzerland...where they had 435,000 armed citizens with military rifles ready to fight any invasion..........

Are we talking about a different group than the NAZI's?

Your stat on Switzerland has a couple logical flaws in it.



That's a long debate as interesting as where the racists in America went after the 68/72 elections.

The racists stayed in the democrat party....as you guys have been shown over and over again....

Well, I suppose what is important is you sound as if you are against the racists.

On a mildly humorous note, if Archie Bunker were alive today what party would he belong to?

You can include George Jefferson in that to just to be fair.

Gotta remember, at some point the Republicans BECAME the states rights party. It probably was not the day Lincoln liberally decided states did not have the right to succeed. It was probably in the mid 60's when the only President the Republicans had since the Hoovervilles of the 1920's was Eisenhower, the man of the Military Industrial Complex speech. At one point it was a run of 4 for Roosevelt, 2 Truman, (2 Eisenhower), 1 Kennedy, 1 Johnson so 8-2 was the score after the Hoovervilles. Then in 68 why did Nixon win?

United States presidential election, 1968 - Wikipedia

The incumbent Johnson decided not to run
Bobby Kennedy was killed.
There were riots at the Democratic Convention.
The Democrats split and in the south voted for the last 3rd party candidate to win a state (5 btw!).

All that and Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey 31,783,783 to 31,271,839 with 9,901,118 votes going to the American Racist Party, er American Independent. (one can debate the electoral college results here but man, Nixon losing by 10,000,000 votes and winning the Presidency would have been interesting in the violent Kent State era)

I know about the civil rights votes of the 60's. I know about Byrd, and Wallace vs Thurmond. The Republicans did well on civil rights up to and in the 60's. Its the 70's and 80's which polluted the GOP with the middle aged well off white racists who voted anti-hippie, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, and anti-welfare.

And more....

Nixon’s Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community | Black Quill and Ink

Believe it or not, the entire myth was created by an unknown editor at the New York Times who didn’t do his job and read a story he was given to edit.

On May 17, 1970, the New York Times published an article written by James Boyd. The headline, written by our unknown editor, was “Nixon’s Southern Strategy: It’s All in the Charts.”

The article was about a very controversial political analyst named Kevin Phillips. Phillips believed that everyone voted according to their ethnic background, not according to their individual beliefs. And all a candidate had to do is frame their message according to whatever moves a particular ethnic group.

Phillips offered his services to the Nixon campaign. But if our unknown editor had bothered to read the story completely, he would’ve seen that Phillip’s and his theory was completely rejected!

Boyd wrote in his article, “Though Phillips’s ideas for an aggressive anti-liberal campaign strategy that would hasten defection of the working-class democrats to the republicans did not prevail in the 1968 campaign, he won the respect John Mitchell.” (Mitchell was a well-known Washington insider at the time).

A lazy, negligent editor partially read the story. And wrote a headline for it that attributed Nixon’s campaign success–to a plan he rejected.

In fact, Phillips isn’t even mentioned in Nixon’s memoirs.

Is all of this the result of a negligent copy editor at the New York Times? Or did they purposely work with the Democrat Party to create this myth? That has crossed my mind and it’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.

Here is the article cited in that link......It will not copy but it is page 4 at the bottom of the first column....you can see for yourself the quote...

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf

I think we are talking past eachother. In 68 there was a 3rd party. Nixon was NOT the candidate of the racists. The man who got 1/3 the votes Nixon did was. The world was a mess. The Democrats were becoming the hippie party, the Democrats were the party with 8 years in the White House and got us tied up in Vietnam.

In 72 w/o the trust of their old racist members of the South the Democrats moved politically left embracing their FDR wing and these new young hippies. The folks on here call them Progressives, this is where it solidified. FDR in the 30's was a Progressive over a strange and split party which really should have been two parties.

Want them or not, Republicans got the demographic the Democrats lost when Johnson got the black vote for 100 years. Thanks to Nixon being Nixon, in 76 a Democrat who was good at being non offensive and apparently a decent man, won because he had nothing to do with Nixon.

There was a string there on the National stage where the Republicans became the party of Archie Bunker and Alex P Keaton. They kicked but and won in 72, 80, 84 and 88, only losing 76 because of Nixon.

I don't even think the Republicans who largely voted for the civil rights acts wanted to scoop up the angry old racist white vote. George McGovern, blacks voting Democrat and hippie hate gave it to them.

 

[Toronado3800]

Are we talking about a different group than the NAZI's?

Your stat on Switzerland has a couple logical flaws in it.



That's a long debate as interesting as where the racists in America went after the 68/72 elections.

The racists stayed in the democrat party....as you guys have been shown over and over again....

Well, I suppose what is important is you sound as if you are against the racists.

On a mildly humorous note, if Archie Bunker were alive today what party would he belong to?

You can include George Jefferson in that to just to be fair.

Gotta remember, at some point the Republicans BECAME the states rights party. It probably was not the day Lincoln liberally decided states did not have the right to succeed. It was probably in the mid 60's when the only President the Republicans had since the Hoovervilles of the 1920's was Eisenhower, the man of the Military Industrial Complex speech. At one point it was a run of 4 for Roosevelt, 2 Truman, (2 Eisenhower), 1 Kennedy, 1 Johnson so 8-2 was the score after the Hoovervilles. Then in 68 why did Nixon win?

United States presidential election, 1968 - Wikipedia

The incumbent Johnson decided not to run
Bobby Kennedy was killed.
There were riots at the Democratic Convention.
The Democrats split and in the south voted for the last 3rd party candidate to win a state (5 btw!).

All that and Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey 31,783,783 to 31,271,839 with 9,901,118 votes going to the American Racist Party, er American Independent. (one can debate the electoral college results here but man, Nixon losing by 10,000,000 votes and winning the Presidency would have been interesting in the violent Kent State era)

I know about the civil rights votes of the 60's. I know about Byrd, and Wallace vs Thurmond. The Republicans did well on civil rights up to and in the 60's. Its the 70's and 80's which polluted the GOP with the middle aged well off white racists who voted anti-hippie, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, and anti-welfare.

And more....

Nixon’s Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community | Black Quill and Ink

Believe it or not, the entire myth was created by an unknown editor at the New York Times who didn’t do his job and read a story he was given to edit.

On May 17, 1970, the New York Times published an article written by James Boyd. The headline, written by our unknown editor, was “Nixon’s Southern Strategy: It’s All in the Charts.”

The article was about a very controversial political analyst named Kevin Phillips. Phillips believed that everyone voted according to their ethnic background, not according to their individual beliefs. And all a candidate had to do is frame their message according to whatever moves a particular ethnic group.

Phillips offered his services to the Nixon campaign. But if our unknown editor had bothered to read the story completely, he would’ve seen that Phillip’s and his theory was completely rejected!

Boyd wrote in his article, “Though Phillips’s ideas for an aggressive anti-liberal campaign strategy that would hasten defection of the working-class democrats to the republicans did not prevail in the 1968 campaign, he won the respect John Mitchell.” (Mitchell was a well-known Washington insider at the time).

A lazy, negligent editor partially read the story. And wrote a headline for it that attributed Nixon’s campaign success–to a plan he rejected.

In fact, Phillips isn’t even mentioned in Nixon’s memoirs.

Is all of this the result of a negligent copy editor at the New York Times? Or did they purposely work with the Democrat Party to create this myth? That has crossed my mind and it’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.

Here is the article cited in that link......It will not copy but it is page 4 at the bottom of the first column....you can see for yourself the quote...

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf

I think we are talking past eachother. In 68 there was a 3rd party. Nixon was NOT the candidate of the racists. The man who got 1/3 the votes Nixon did was. The world was a mess. The Democrats were becoming the hippie party, the Democrats were the party with 8 years in the White House and got us tied up in Vietnam.

In 72 w/o the trust of their old racist members of the South the Democrats moved politically left embracing their FDR wing and these new young hippies. The folks on here call them Progressives, this is where it solidified. FDR in the 30's was a Progressive over a strange and split party which really should have been two parties.

Want them or not, Republicans got the demographic the Democrats lost when Johnson got the black vote for 100 years. Thanks to Nixon being Nixon, in 76 a Democrat who was good at being non offensive and apparently a decent man, won because he had nothing to do with Nixon.

There was a string there on the National stage where the Republicans became the party of Archie Bunker and Alex P Keaton. They kicked but and won in 72, 80, 84 and 88, only losing 76 because of Nixon.

I don't even think the Republicans who largely voted for the civil rights acts wanted to scoop up the angry old racist white vote. George McGovern, blacks voting Democrat and hippie hate gave it to them.

Heck, lets just finish this now.

Come 1980 a proud tall ex actor from California (where they elect more Republican than Democrat Governors) sealed the deal on the party flip. He ran on a Conservative platform of anti communism (the wall did end up falling), open markets (like his tariff in imported cars which I support!),anti-abortion (how's that turned out 40 years later?), a balanced budget (ey, did you really think this old FDR man had any interest in balancing the budget) and the idea ppl should be better off than they were four years ago.

Reagan ended up promising crazy things (we don't negotiate with terrorists, we just give the Hezbollah missiles for hostages!), Conservative values (well, conservative means small government, not 'conservative' in financial terms, ask the S&L folks).

None the less he won two terms and is regarded as a hero by many (and interesting by me).

Many things in life don't have a great plan, they just happen. When California winning Reagan (see Georgia winning Carter lol) called himself "Conservative" and wrapped himself in the flag he won, well, the Conservatives. Who voted for Reagan? A lot of ppl really. But much like Trump these nuts who hated the hippies, cussing in music, nudity in magazines, the idea the earth is more than 6,000 years old and communism gravitated towards him. Included in this group were the remnants and replacements of the Conservative wing of the Democratic Party.

You see, everyone did such a good job of yelling "Liberal" or "Progressive" at the Democrats their Conservative wing broke off and when this bi-polar Republican who sounded GREAT ran as a Conservative what do you know, they voted for him!

Does that mean all Republicans were suddenly racists? No, it sounds like you aren't and no, the droves of Republicans who voted for the Civil Rights Acts weren't suddenly racists. They just had to placate their now found racist allies on the national stage by not trash talking them.

I got some stats for you in a bit.

 

[Toronado3800]

The racists stayed in the democrat party....as you guys have been shown over and over again....

Well, I suppose what is important is you sound as if you are against the racists.

On a mildly humorous note, if Archie Bunker were alive today what party would he belong to?

You can include George Jefferson in that to just to be fair.

Gotta remember, at some point the Republicans BECAME the states rights party. It probably was not the day Lincoln liberally decided states did not have the right to succeed. It was probably in the mid 60's when the only President the Republicans had since the Hoovervilles of the 1920's was Eisenhower, the man of the Military Industrial Complex speech. At one point it was a run of 4 for Roosevelt, 2 Truman, (2 Eisenhower), 1 Kennedy, 1 Johnson so 8-2 was the score after the Hoovervilles. Then in 68 why did Nixon win?

United States presidential election, 1968 - Wikipedia

The incumbent Johnson decided not to run
Bobby Kennedy was killed.
There were riots at the Democratic Convention.
The Democrats split and in the south voted for the last 3rd party candidate to win a state (5 btw!).

All that and Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey 31,783,783 to 31,271,839 with 9,901,118 votes going to the American Racist Party, er American Independent. (one can debate the electoral college results here but man, Nixon losing by 10,000,000 votes and winning the Presidency would have been interesting in the violent Kent State era)

I know about the civil rights votes of the 60's. I know about Byrd, and Wallace vs Thurmond. The Republicans did well on civil rights up to and in the 60's. Its the 70's and 80's which polluted the GOP with the middle aged well off white racists who voted anti-hippie, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, and anti-welfare.

And more....

Nixon’s Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community | Black Quill and Ink

Believe it or not, the entire myth was created by an unknown editor at the New York Times who didn’t do his job and read a story he was given to edit.

On May 17, 1970, the New York Times published an article written by James Boyd. The headline, written by our unknown editor, was “Nixon’s Southern Strategy: It’s All in the Charts.”

The article was about a very controversial political analyst named Kevin Phillips. Phillips believed that everyone voted according to their ethnic background, not according to their individual beliefs. And all a candidate had to do is frame their message according to whatever moves a particular ethnic group.

Phillips offered his services to the Nixon campaign. But if our unknown editor had bothered to read the story completely, he would’ve seen that Phillip’s and his theory was completely rejected!

Boyd wrote in his article, “Though Phillips’s ideas for an aggressive anti-liberal campaign strategy that would hasten defection of the working-class democrats to the republicans did not prevail in the 1968 campaign, he won the respect John Mitchell.” (Mitchell was a well-known Washington insider at the time).

A lazy, negligent editor partially read the story. And wrote a headline for it that attributed Nixon’s campaign success–to a plan he rejected.

In fact, Phillips isn’t even mentioned in Nixon’s memoirs.

Is all of this the result of a negligent copy editor at the New York Times? Or did they purposely work with the Democrat Party to create this myth? That has crossed my mind and it’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.

Here is the article cited in that link......It will not copy but it is page 4 at the bottom of the first column....you can see for yourself the quote...

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf

I think we are talking past eachother. In 68 there was a 3rd party. Nixon was NOT the candidate of the racists. The man who got 1/3 the votes Nixon did was. The world was a mess. The Democrats were becoming the hippie party, the Democrats were the party with 8 years in the White House and got us tied up in Vietnam.

In 72 w/o the trust of their old racist members of the South the Democrats moved politically left embracing their FDR wing and these new young hippies. The folks on here call them Progressives, this is where it solidified. FDR in the 30's was a Progressive over a strange and split party which really should have been two parties.

Want them or not, Republicans got the demographic the Democrats lost when Johnson got the black vote for 100 years. Thanks to Nixon being Nixon, in 76 a Democrat who was good at being non offensive and apparently a decent man, won because he had nothing to do with Nixon.

There was a string there on the National stage where the Republicans became the party of Archie Bunker and Alex P Keaton. They kicked but and won in 72, 80, 84 and 88, only losing 76 because of Nixon.

I don't even think the Republicans who largely voted for the civil rights acts wanted to scoop up the angry old racist white vote. George McGovern, blacks voting Democrat and hippie hate gave it to them.

Heck, lets just finish this now.

Come 1980 a proud tall ex actor from California (where they elect more Republican than Democrat Governors) sealed the deal on the party flip. He ran on a Conservative platform of anti communism (the wall did end up falling), open markets (like his tariff in imported cars which I support!),anti-abortion (how's that turned out 40 years later?), a balanced budget (ey, did you really think this old FDR man had any interest in balancing the budget) and the idea ppl should be better off than they were four years ago.

Reagan ended up promising crazy things (we don't negotiate with terrorists, we just give the Hezbollah missiles for hostages!), Conservative values (well, conservative means small government, not 'conservative' in financial terms, ask the S&L folks).

None the less he won two terms and is regarded as a hero by many (and interesting by me).

Many things in life don't have a great plan, they just happen. When California winning Reagan (see Georgia winning Carter lol) called himself "Conservative" and wrapped himself in the flag he won, well, the Conservatives. Who voted for Reagan? A lot of ppl really. But much like Trump these nuts who hated the hippies, cussing in music, nudity in magazines, the idea the earth is more than 6,000 years old and communism gravitated towards him. Included in this group were the remnants and replacements of the Conservative wing of the Democratic Party.

You see, everyone did such a good job of yelling "Liberal" or "Progressive" at the Democrats their Conservative wing broke off and when this bi-polar Republican who sounded GREAT ran as a Conservative what do you know, they voted for him!

Does that mean all Republicans were suddenly racists? No, it sounds like you aren't and no, the droves of Republicans who voted for the Civil Rights Acts weren't suddenly racists. They just had to placate their now found racist allies on the national stage by not trash talking them.

I got some stats for you in a bit.

Below the first number is for, the second against.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

"Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.[24]

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)"

Using this as a snapshot it seems the civil war was not over in 1964. Republicans and Democrats in the non Confederate States voted ~90% for it (but slightly fewer Republicans). Not one Southern Republican and almost no Southern Democrats voted for it. The rest of the country imposed its will on the South.

The South hated their old party for this betrayal and in 68 formed a new party based on Conservative American values and States Rights because the Republicans at the time were the party of....well....if they were the party of Lincoln that doesn't sound like State's Rights....they were the party of Hoovervilles? That doesn't sound good. Both parties outside the South voted for civil rights. Johnson famously made the most out of it riding this Kennedy wave of a Newer Deal. The Republicans had problems. Republicans were anti-communists but the McCarthy era was fading. These hippies sure did stink, the Democratic Convention on TV looked terrible, folks weren't for pot then, rock n roll was scary, hippies tended to be Democrat.

So I don't think on a Party level the Republicans decided to go racist in 1972 or anything. Did someone in the Republican Party jump at the chance to win the old Democrat Vote? Sure, but even if we are talking 1974 I'm not giving that 1974 person power over the 1964 Republicans who still largely existed. As soon as the GOP became the party of anti-FDR and Conservatism not the party of Liberal Lincoln they sure did get the Conservative vote.

Republican Governor having California is a more interesting study IMO.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I think we are talking past each other.

Ya think? Ever suspect you may be wasting your time feeding some wet behind the ears, Koch Bros paid trolls posing as one person here?

In 68 there was a 3rd party. Nixon was NOT the candidate of the racists

Sounds like you were around then too. Life is short. I suggest not wasting another second of it providing this unit more excuse to spam its ready, seemingly endless, well indexed supply of mentally ill talking points upon this board.

 

[Toronado3800]

I think we are talking past each other.

Ya think? Ever suspect you may be wasting your time feeding some wet behind the ears, Koch Bros paid trolls posing as one person here?

In 68 there was a 3rd party. Nixon was NOT the candidate of the racists

Sounds like you were around then too. Life is short. I suggest not wasting another second of it providing this unit more excuse to spam its ready, seemingly endless, well indexed supply of mentally ill talking points upon this board.

It IS the CDZ so we have to be nice to everyone even if I come off as snarky a lot.

2aguy has his issue. I actually own a gun so we more argue degrees. I suspect he has his favorite party / team but even if he is a die hard party member a Democrat who was trying to rid the party of racism in the 60's helped accomplish a great thing.

On the tree forums they think I'm an odd community association and farmer welfare hating Republican though lol so I can find some middle ground. Its the Clean Debate Zone, not the Clean Agreement Zone so I come here to nitpick and debate.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Long as you're enjoying yourself... more power to ya!

 

[Pellinore]

Besides the fact that some of the OP's claims are either misrepresentations or just made up, the problem with the OP is that it is makes no distinction between gun control and gun seizure. Requiring a background check before buying a handgun is nowhere near the level of a mass door-kicking gun confiscation purge from Stalinist Russia.