Jack Weber Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 And, in a what if world, would you feel the Nazi’s early political “successes” would have played out as historic if the German population had of been armed? The fact is that many were armed... Assissination ran rampant in the early days of the Weimar Republic... Sadly,it was faction against faction...The NAZI's were simply the biggest bullies of the period... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 I understand, but my point was about self-described libertarians--most of whom support and defend all sorts of authoritarian, "big-government" measures and initiatives. So long as guns are cool and taxes are low...... Ultimately it’s depends on the degrees on said political compass one lands upon…….I think full fledge Libertarians are just as kooky as Commies/Fascists It may have done (we'll never know), but we were talking about Ghandi himself: This is true, but in retort: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." — Mahatma Gandhi Well, obviously I'm not a "commie," any more than you're a "fascist." Exactly, just don’t let the uber partisans know that though Kind of fly’s in the face of logic when many refer to PM Harper as a fascists, all the well his Government just eased the laws on private ownership of firearms….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 The fact is that many were armed... Assissination ran rampant in the early days of the Weimar Republic... Sadly,it was faction against faction...The NAZI's were simply the biggest bullies of the period... This is true, but the Nazi’s garnered much of the strength through the subversion of local militia’s (guys with guns), with my point being, if the citizenry had of been armed, we might not have seen the Nazi’s rise to power, but a full scale civil war…….Imagine if the Communists had of won? Might have been a different world in which we live in today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) Ultimately its depends on the degrees on said political compass one lands upon…….I think full fledge Libertarians are just as kooky as Commies/Fascists Yes, it often entails a heady mix of left and right, as in anarcho-capitalism and anarchy generally. (This is not at all to discredit the more sober and thoughtful intellectual advocates of libertarianism and anarchism, who have serious things to say, whether we agree with them or not.) Just as a side note, it's often stated (by self-styled "centrists," often Establishment liberals) that mixing left and right produces a rational centre. I say not necessarily: it also produces caricatures like Alex Jones. Kind of flys in the face of logic when many refer to PM Harper as a fascists, all the well his Government just eased the laws on private ownership of firearms….. Even if he hadn't done so, he isn't a fascist. Fascist has an actual meaning to it; yes, it's a little more complex than some poeple might think, and takes on varying attributes and degrees of horror...but it's not helpful as a simple pejorative for leaders we don't like. Edited April 9, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) This is true, but the Nazis garnered much of the strength through the subversion of local militias (guys with guns), with my point being, if the citizenry had of been armed, we might not have seen the Nazis rise to power, but a full scale civil war…….Imagine if the Communists had of won? Might have been a different world in which we live in today. Essentially,the period of 1918 to 1925-26 was a form of Civil War in Germany... It was out of that economic and social chaos that allowed the NAZI party to bring their brand of "clarity" to the situation... The fact of the matter was that many,other than die hard NAZI's of the time were armed...Quite heavily,in fact...It didn't seem to matter because the societal conditions in Germany at the time made many people (by no means a historical majority of German citizens,by the way) receptive to the carefully crafted NAZI message... So no,I cannot agree with your rather simplistic,and historically inaccurate "arming the populous" theory... Edited April 9, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 The fact of the matter was that many,other than die hard NAZI's of the time were armed...Quite heavily,in fact That just isn't true. You're either ignorant or lying. Take your pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Yes, it often entails a heady mix of left and right, as in anarcho-capitalism and anarchy generally. (This is not at all to discredit the more sober and thoughtful intellectual advocates of libertarianism and anarchism, who have serious things to say, whether we agree with them or not.) Just as a side note, it's often stated (by self-styled "centrists," often Establishment liberals) that mixing left and right produces a rational centre. I say not necessarily: it also produces caricatures like Alex Jones. Even if he hadn't done so, he isn't a fascist. Fascist has an actual meaning to it; yes, it's a little more complex than some poeple might think, and takes on varying attributes and degrees of horror...but it's not helpful as a simple pejorative for leaders we don't like. Exactly, there is no better demonstration of this than Canadian politics, where it is clearly made evident my parties shifting to the center of the compass…….. I personally don’t think it’s Government’s business to regulate Individuals from smoking pot on their patio, marrying a person of the same sex, aborting an unwanted fetus or having enough Gunz and ammo in their house to start their own religion………Call me a small & big C Conservative or a Classic Liberal if you must Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Essentially,the period of 1918 to 1925-26 was a form of Civil War in Germany... It was out of that economic and social chaos that allowed the NAZI party to bring their brand of "clarity" to the situation... The fact of the matter was that many,other than die hard NAZI's of the time were armed...Quite heavily,in fact...It didn't seem to matter because the societal conditions in Germany at the time made many people (by no means a historical majority of German citizens,by the way) receptive to the carefully crafted NAZI message... So no,I cannot agree with your rather simplistic,and historically inaccurate "arming the populous" theory... What groups, other than the Nazi’s were heavily armed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 What groups, other than the Nazi’s were heavily armed? Extreme leftist groups...The actual military of the Weimar Republic... Mu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Extreme leftist groups...The actual military of the Weimar Republic... Mu But who had the "guns"? The Freikorps ultimately garnered power to the differing political groups……..This is a stark difference between the populace being armed versus organs of the Government and political parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 But who had the "guns"? The Freikorps ultimately garnered power to the differing political groups……..This is a stark difference between the populace being armed versus organs of the Government and political parties. I'm sorry...I simply cannot agree with you that arming the populous of the Weimar republic would have changed a thing... I'm afraid I find your view the very simplistic NRA driven theory that somehow this would have kept a check on the chaos of the Weimer Republic... Frankly,it's not transportable and it's a very lame attempt at trying to rewrite history... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Extreme leftist groups...The actual military of the Weimar Republic... /facepalm Yes Jack, we know that the military was armed. That's not the same thing as the population in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 But who had the "guns"? Apparently Jack's big revelation is that the military had guns. I wouldn't waste your time with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 I'm sorry...I simply cannot agree with you that arming the populous of the Weimar republic would have changed a thing... I'm afraid I find your view the very simplistic NRA driven theory that somehow this would have kept a check on the chaos of the Weimer Republic... Frankly,it's not transportable and it's a very lame attempt at trying to rewrite history... Why is that? To paraphrase Mao, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun..... This was clearly made evident as per historic events in the Weimar Republic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Why is that? To paraphrase Mao, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun..... This was clearly made evident as per historic events in the Weimar Republic. Because yours is a historical "What If" flight of fancy attempting to staisfy your personal desire to see the NRA's vison of gun control brought to this country... I'm simply not interested in alternate versions of history... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Because yours is a historical "What If" flight of fancy attempting to staisfy your personal desire to see the NRA's vison of gun control brought to this country... I'm simply not interested in alternate versions of history... Then why respond to the discussion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 I'm simply not interested in alternate versions of history... Right. Except when it comes to robocalls. Then you're very much interested in alternate versions of history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Then why respond to the discussion? Because there were a few historical inaccuracies being thrown out there... Sorry to tread on the flights of fancy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Because there were a few historical inaccuracies being thrown out there... Sorry to tread on the flights of fancy... Historical inaccuracies? The discussion clearly devolved into “what if” territory a few pages back, sorry if you were a late comer to the thread and missed the transition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Here's a good reason. Excerpt. No, it's not. It might have been a good reason on an individual basis, but on a societal basis the fact is that guns in the house are more likely to kill than protect. For every person who saves themselves because of the presence of a firearm two die because of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Not just the Nazis, but also the policies of the Weimar Republic, which allowed a gaggle of thugs armed with namely clubs and fists to come to power relying on intimidation and fear tactics emplaced upon their opponents……….If you had a battle rifle in your closet, are you going to be intimidated by a gaggle of goons smashing windows and hurling bigoted slogans? That is not what happened. The Nazis did not come to power through intimidation but through a bad economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Would you consider the ‘32 election fair and without intimidation of the Nazis opponents? There was a lot of violence from both the Nazis and the Communists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 That is not what happened. The Nazis did not come to power through intimidation but through a bad economy. And how did the Nazi Government remain in power through the early to mid 30s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 And, in a what if world, would you feel the Nazi’s early political “successes” would have played out as historic if the German population had of been armed? If everyone had been armed those wild street fights between the Nazis and the Communists would have devolved into wholesale slaughter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) And how did the Nazi Government remain in power through the early to mid 30s? I'm not sure what your point is here. By then they were in charge of the military. The idea that individual citizens with their deer rifles can rush out and take on an organized, heavily armed military is pure fantasy. Edited April 10, 2012 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.