Why doesn't we just say it plainly? (Refuse to be unarmed victims)

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

breakingcontact

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
1,237
Location
Austin, TX
I've always been interested in WW2. The documentaries about the civilian massacres are just impossibly sad. I've watched a couple lately and had the thought...

"If every adult male Jew had a rifle, it wouldn't have happened."

I know there were centuries of conditioning and a gradual reduction in rights and nothing is simple but really our response to the gun grabbers needs to include the very accurate and honest observation that we need to have the means to defend ourselves from criminals but also from a hostile government.

I just can't fathom how anyone who knows even a minimal amount of history would willingly give up the right to arms or restrict others right to arms. The only reason I can understand and it is terrifying is that "they" view us as the "other" much as the NAZIs viewed the Jews.
 
Last edited:
There is always someone who will be more than happy to tell you to hurry up and get in the oven before you upset the guards...
 
You put your finger on it with your last sentence. To the career politician, you are as important as the average jew was to the average nazi.

Secondly, we are not taught history anymore. For obvious reasons, "they" do not want us thinking for ourselves. Remember the Khmer Rouge? Day one, they shot anyone who wore glasses. They could read and were therefore educated. Can't be havin' none of that, can we?

Pretty much, your original post was spot on.
 
I just can't fathom how anyone who knows even a minimal amount of history would willingly give up the right to arms or restrict others right to arms.
Click to expand...

They simply don't understand that government is the domestic enemy that's referenced in the "support and defend the Constitution" oath.
 
breakingcontact said:
I
I just can't fathom how anyone who knows even a minimal amount of history would willingly give up the right to arms or restrict others right to arms
Click to expand...

-Most people don't know anything about actual history. The education system is extremely liberally bias, and it shows in what people learn.

-At the highest levels, gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. Those at the highest levels would of course be the overlords and THEY would have guns, or have armed guards. The sheep are convinced to blaat along in the name of "safety"

-The liberal bias to media, and especially to Hollywood, significantly aids in convincing the sheep that "guns are baaad"
 
Very interesting. Especially the analogies drawn to Jewish history. Honestly, I never thought of it that way although after checking out the JFPO website a couple of nights ago I sort of started to shift my mental paradigms of what being armed may mean.

I'll admit I have nothing to contribute but after watching the videos on the JFPO website this post has a lot more weight. "Rufuse to be unarmed victims"... A new concept....
 
Many of the massacres of WWII had members of the soon to be slaughtered trying to convince their fellows to not resist and do what they were told. Look furher and you will see that guns were outlawed or severely restricted in many of the countries. The population had no ability to fight back. In a few places the population revolted (Warsaw). Yes the Nazi's eventually one but at a great cost. If that type of resistance would have been possible all across Europe history would most certainly have been different.
 
I think that this administration thinks it knows whats best for you. They want to disarm you for your own good, and of course they have no designs on taking advantage of you when you are disarmed right? All I gotta say is absolute power corrupts absolutely. Never give up your right to fight back.
 
Quote:
Are you insinuating there are people here who would actually give up their guns???

I'm insinuating there are people on this board who seem more than willing to give up YOUR guns in the vain hope they'll be allowed to keep THEIRS, with just the proper amount of boot licking, of course. And a bit of groveling. It's called compromise, you know. Apparently civillized people do that.

Good things I've never been accused of being overly civillized.
 
If it weren't so serious, it'd be hilarious. They ship weapons by the truck load to Mexican drug cartels but think us law abiding citizens shouldn't have the tools to defend ourselves. All the while they live in the comfort of having armed guards 24/7. Well I heard something a few days ago that I think is relevant:

"America was created by tax evading, tobacco growing, beer brewing, gun smuggling rough neck men who wouldn't submit to overbearing, gun control advocating tyrants. And by God, it will be saved by the same kind of men."
 
And by God, it will be saved by the same kind of men.
Click to expand...

I sure hope so, but I don't have much faith in some of the sheeple I see day to day. Most of them probably shouldn't even have evolved to walking upright...it would be more convenient for them to be on all fours than constantly having to bend over.
 
The fact that a genocide was actually occurring was a closely guarded secret. The aforementioned Jewish population did fight back (and hard -- see Warsaw and Poland) once they became aware of what was happening. They just waited much too long to do so, and had to first acquire the hardware after the decision was made to fight back.

Even if they had all been armed circa 1930 or so, it seems likely that disarmament in and of itself would have been seen as sufficient cause for violent uprising. Therefore, they still would have been DISARMED by the time the genocide was discovered, and a decision was made to shoot back.
This, in my mind, is why it makes sense to jealously defend the RKBA now, even in the absence of an immediate threat of tyranny. I don’t seriously think the current crop of ‘antis’ are motivated by a desire to commit genocide – they just haven’t internalized the idea that such events are likely enough to be worth preventing.

I think when presenting this argument, it is important to frame it as prevention, rather than paranoia. Disarmament makes genocide possible. Even if a repeat of the Nazi experience is extremely unlikely, it is still better not to create conditions that make it easy. This is an argument that has a wider potential audience, without making us look far more paranoid than we really are.

I am armed because I like living in a country where genocide would be really really hard, not because I actively expect to spend the 2020’s taking part in an armed rebellion. As I see it, the RKBA movement actually REDUCES the chance of another civil war occurring in this country, for exactly the same reason that a CCW can reduce the odds of a criminal encounter becoming actively violent.
 
Unfortunately, history reminds us that there has never been a truly benevolent government. Government is about power, and power is a zero-sum process. We are either leaders or we are led. When the government gains more power, it gains that power at the expense of the people it governs. When we agree to give the government more power, we are surrendering some of our own power. As government gains more power, we lose more and more of our freedom. If we surrender enough power, if we become dependent on the government, the government gains the advantage and we move closer and closer to tyranny and dictatorship. We will either control our government, as our Founding Fathers intended, or our government will control us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top