Skip to content
  • NPC the Clown

    US government: Thank goodness for whiteout.

  • DreamsOfCyanide

    disturbing lack of orange

  • QuickShooterMk3
    • TRVTH

      Judge Jewberg is as adept at pilpul applied to Constitutions and laws as he is when it is applied to the Talmud.

  • Rainy Haze

    Fact-checkers have described this theory as “false” or “debunked.”[21][22][23][1]

    In a 2011 magazine piece, law professor Mark Nuckols says Nazi gun control hypotheses are part of a “shaky intellectual edifice” underlying “belief in widespread gun ownership as a defense against tyrannical government.” He says the idea is “gaining traction with members of Congress as well as fringe conspiracy theorists.”[4] In his 2011 book, fellow law professor Adam Winkler says: “This radical wing of the gun rights movement focuses less on the value of guns for self-defense against criminals than on their value for fighting tyranny.”[15] He says the militia groups that grew in number across the U.S. after the early 1990s organized “to fight off what they saw as an increasingly tyrannical federal government and what they imagined was the inevitable invasion of the United States by the United Nations.”[24] Winkler wrote that “[to] some on the fringe,” the Brady Bill “was proof that the government was determined to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights.”[25]

    Because mainstream scholars argue that gun laws in Germany were already strict prior to Hitler,[2][5][3][26] gun-control advocates may view the hypothesis as a form of Reductio ad Hitlerum.[7] In a 2004 issue of the Fordham Law Review, legal scholar Bernard Harcourt said Halbrook “perhaps rightly” could say that he made the first scholarly analysis of his Nazi-gun-registration subject, but as a gun-rights litigator, not as a historian.[5]:669–670 Harcourt called on historians for more research and serious scholarship on Nazi gun laws. “Apparently,” Harcourt wrote, “the historians have paid scant attention to the history of firearms regulation in the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich.”[5]:679–680 According to Harcourt, “Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide,”[5]:676 but the disarming and killing of Jews was unconnected with Nazi gun control policy, and it is “absurd to even try to characterize this as either pro- or anti-gun control.” If he had to choose, Harcourt said, the Nazi regime was pro-gun compared with the Weimar Republic that preceded it.[5]:671,677 He says that gun rights advocates disagree about the relationship between Nazi gun control and the Holocaust, with many distancing themselves from the idea. Political scientist Robert Spitzer said (in the same law review as Harcourt, who stated the same thing) the quality of Halbrook’s historical research is poor.[3] In reference to Halbrook’s hypothesis that gun control leads to authoritarian regimes, Spitzer says that “actual cases of nation-building and regime change, including but not limited to Germany, if anything support the opposite position.”[26]:728

    Regarding the “Nazi gun control theory,” anthropologist Abigail Kohn wrote in her 2004 book:[2]

    Such counterfactual arguments are problematic because they reinvent the past to imagine a possible future. In fact, Jews were not well-armed and were not able to adequately defend themselves against Nazi aggression. Thus, reimagining a past in which they were and did does not provide a legitimate basis for arguments about what might have followed.

    In the encyclopedic 2012 book, Guns in American Society, Holocaust scholar Michael Bryant says Halbrook, LaPierre, Zelman, Dave Kopel, and others’ “use of history has selected factual inaccuracies, and their methodology can be questioned.”[3]

    In January 2013, Anti-Defamation League (ADL) director Abraham Foxman said in a press release: “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.”[27] Later that year, Jewish groups and Jersey City, New Jersey, mayor Steven Fulop criticized the NRA for comparing gun control supporters to Nazi Germany.[28] The Jewish Federation of Greater MetroWest NJ released a statement saying: “Access to guns and the systematic murder of six million Jews have no basis for comparison in the United States or in New Jersey. The Holocaust has no place in this discussion and it is offensive to link this tragedy to such a debate.”[28]

    In October 2015, in response to comments made by Ben Carson, history professor Alan E. Steinweis wrote in a New York Times piece:

    The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country’s population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population. Mr. Carson’s suggestion that ordinary Germans, had they had guns, would have risked their lives in armed resistance against the regime simply does not comport with the regrettable historical reality of a regime that was quite popular at home. Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis, but the generals had thrown in their lot with Hitler early on.

  • Albionic American

    America’s gun owners didn’t stop civil rights legislation. It has fallen down the memory hole that Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson called out the National Guard on several occasions to force white Southerners at gunpoint to accept integration of their institutions, despite our national delusions about how we live in a “democracy” where we resolve our differences through persuasion and compromise instead of state-sanctioned violence and terror.

    • Brennan the Great

      The KKK wasn’t interested in persuasion and compromise.

    • jim

      Boomers who say the government abuses their rights on a daily basis are the most likely to say who say they would use their guns if such a thing were to happen, its a contradiction for sure

    • Allison Kaas

      You can’t force cowards to take advantage of their rights, unfortunately.

  • Albionic American

    Iraqis under Saddam’s regime could own firearms and ammo, and apparently Baghdad had legal gun shops. For some reason America’s 2nd Amendment obsessives don’t want to talk about how this example conflicts with their ideology about how private gun ownership keeps tyranny at bay:

    From 2003:

    Iraqi public well-armed and wary

    https://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0310/p01s03-woiq.html

    • I think we’d all like to put 2003 behind us.

      • TRVTH

        “Stop talking about Thunderdome! Why can’t we get BEYOND Thunderdome?”

    • TRVTH

      And yet there must be some reason (((they))) want so desperately to disarm us. I suspect they have big, big plans, “visionary” plans, that they know they won’t be able to get away with against the wishes of an armed populace.

      Then, too, so many of them grew up listening to Uncle Schlomo tell stories of being a “policeman” (read: NKVD death-squad thug) in “the old country,” and about what fun it was making all those Hohols and Litvaks kneel in front of ditches and beg for their lives before shooting them in the back of the head. You can’t collectivize the kulaks until you disarm them, right?

      Things are accelerating and escalating even as we watch. I think half of (((them))) think they’ve already won forever and don’t need to pretend for the benefit of the stupid hicks in Flyover Country any more, and want to consolidate their power. The other half are frantic, panicking, and throwing tantrums because Hillary was supposed to win. This is why, for instance, they’re so frantic to cram tranny dick down all our throats in one twentieth the time they took slowly “normalizing” homosexuality. This is why they’re so gung-ho to use the ongoing Wubonic Plague outbreak to flex their legal muscle, establish new precedents under which Constitutional rights are just privileges that can be revoked whenever our lords and masters choose, and get the dumb hick hu-wite taxpayer peasants used to jumping when they hear their betters crack the whip. (“Never let a crisis go to waste!”)

      As a dispassionate observer of history, I suspect that those who are hoping to see further escalation may be about to get what they want. Note here that I am offering no value judgements. I am offering an opinion on what the Soviets used to call “the correlation of historical forces” and this information is descriptive, not prescriptive.

      You can vote your way into Clown World, but you can’t vote your way back out again. HONK HONK!

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1bdca2b526a6e704e77bd873298ce38bd69f51f450eb1a6f2813bc2dcd2d62f8.png

    • TRVTH

      Given how badly as (((they))) want to disarm us, I wonder if there might be a reason for it. Perhaps I just have an evil, suspicious mind, but I wonder if they have plans that they know we wouldn’t consent to, to which an armed population would present an obstacle. Reading history will make you cynical that way.

      A fellow named Langan, who supposedly has one of the highest IQs ever recorded, speculates on what (((Da Big Idea))) might be:

      https://media.thedonald.win/thedonald/post/t55FyVuE.png

    • jim

      maybe Saddam wasn’t as 2D evil as westerners think he was…

    • Allison Kaas

      Saddam did nothing wrong.

    • ssgtnelson

      That’s actually not true. Even bird hunting shotguns were forbidden unless you passed a very difficult background check, verifying your loyalty.

  • Alistair Grove

    Damn Boomers.

  • Lhassir

    “B-but they didn’t know about assault weapons that shoot 30 round magazine clips!” Founding fathers: Privately owned cannons.

    • Shay Vicemerski
      • Boyas
        • Shay Vicemerski

          guns wont help people against tanks and attack drones. Poor people never had and will never have power. If the elites and rulers want something they will get it.

          what is the context on this picture though? looks horrible.

          • Lhassir

            What is Afghanistan (twice over) Iraq etc etc.

          • fern tuttleby

            Actually they will help people you moronic child, but how could anyone expect a retarded idiot to understand just how important guns are in relation to freedom.

          • Allison Kaas

            no one’s going to send a tank or a drone at you.
            they will send cops at you.
            guns help against cops.

          • James

            What do you think they will send as a follow-up if you use a gun against cops?

          • Allison Kaas

            one person? nothing. an entire town? progress.

          • James

            You think one person could fight off cops with a gun and not have anything sent in response? They’d just say “o well lol looks like he won that one”?

          • Allison Kaas

            reading comprehension’s not your strong suit huh

          • James

            10/10 response m8. “Guns help against cops” is a neckbeard’s wet dream, nothing more.

            There’s no “progress” coming; there’s no “revolution”. If the powers that be decide you’re to be arrested, and you’re less physically powerful/rich/etc. than e.g., McAffee, you’re going to be arrested. Resist arrest, and get shot. Win the shootout, they send 10x the cops. Win that shootout, they send, what, the national guard? Let’s indulge you and say you manage to kill every last one of them with your precious guns. Do you win, then?

            I would bet a significant amount of money against any of the edgelords in these comments hypothetically getting to the final wave of that battle.

          • Allison Kaas

            You only need to mobilize about 7% of a typical country’s population to completely cripple its infrastructure.

            America’s three most important utility distribution centers are barely guarded.

          • James

            Even if I approved of fighting back against unjust arrests, wouldn’t attacking distribution centers for supplies that normal, non-sociopaths need to live make you the bad guys?

            Why not just move to 3rdWorldistan if you think destroying infrastructure is a good recreational pastime? “Cops are bad, so kill civilians”? wtaf bro

          • Allison Kaas

            So, what will you do?

          • James

            Continue voting+advocating libertarianism, donating to EFF, etc. until the republican-democrat oligopoly cycle turns this place into a dystopian shithole, then leave to join McAfee on his party boat or something

          • Allison Kaas

            kek, just kill yourself now

          • Drones?

            Ever heard of a Metal Gear?

            Ever heard of an Anti-Metal Gear?

          • KnowItAllNancy

            That second image is from Kenya, its got absolutely nothing to do with America or its amendments.

          • Kocayine

            yes, all those tanks the viet cong had

          • ssgtnelson

            Can you let Al Qaeda and the Taliban know that, because they fought the West to a standstill without tanks or drones.

          • Sargi

            Wont work, use of tanks and drones would be bombing areas. Govt does that in a populated area, it would create more rebels.

          • Jerell Amadi-Emina

            Alex, what are IEDs and rocket launchers?

          • Deus Dex

            The point isn’t to win every battle. The point is to make the tyrants bleed for every freedom they take.
            Elites don’t like to bleed. When they and their sons are vulnerable to every patriot with a gun hiding in the shadows they think twice about going to war with the people.
            When they know they’re safe they do whatever they want with impunity.

        • Sweetirony

          lol yeah shoot the armored law enforcement member, see how that works. People without the balls to join the military always say its to protect against law enforcement taking away their rights but 1) that almost never happens despite the US having the most homicides done by police officers 2)a pistol would work just fine. Once you are dealing with people who would require assault rifles you are dead lol.

      • Lhassir

        Your take is room temperature IQ levels of rarted.

  • HT

    Clue for Jews. I once saw a movie where only the government and police were allowed to have guns. It was called Schindler’s List.

    • Chris Redfield

      Before the reign of the National Socialists in Germany, there was the Weimar Republic that had strict gun control. It was the National Socialists who had greatly loosed gun control for citizens.

      • HT

        I believe the law was passed in 1938 in Germany that prohibited Jews specifically from having guns. In spite of that, most Jews now support gun control in America.

        • Chris Redfield

          It’s a trait of jews to support gun control and third world immigration in other countries but their positions reverse when it is for Israel.

  • Tynox

    any anarchist who tells you he wants to take your guns away isnt an anarchist, any fascist who tells you he wont take your guns away and shoot you in the back with his own isnt a fascist

  • Brandon

    One of the World’s Greatest Mysteries, right up there next to how many genders there are.

  • Moantoss

    its called an amendment, i mean… if you cant fix something thats called an amendment….. ????

Primary Sidebar