Poor Ben.

[Pio1980]

I still think he's fos on this. Later on, things had deteriorated to the point that no effective internal opposition was possible, armed or otherwise. The only guns that could change things were those aimed at the Wehrmacht from outside in.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by matteos

I think he has a somewhat point about gun control.

There were uprisings, Like the Warsaw uprisings. Around 8,000 Polish rebels and some 200,000 civilians were killed. But also around 8,000 German soldiers. More guns may have meant more of this. Nobody would willingly go to their death without a fight.. After the first few years people had an inkling what the regime was up to.

Hitler wasn't likely to Blitzkrieg the Jewish ghettos in Germany. Even if he did, that would have meant fewer tanks and soldiers on both front lines which would have given the allies a bigger advantage and we may have been able to push quicker and harder.

It may have not stopped the genocide but armed uprisings/terrorist events within the third reich would have at least helped the allies a great deal with their counter attack. Therefore shortening the war, therefore reducing the number of people gassed

And I don't think it is stupid to discuss this issue and branding Carson a racist/idiot rather than discuss the merits of his argument (Which is all I've read - denouncement not discussion) is idiocy.

I wouldn't vote for him though.

I think people who want guns can always get guns. Guerrilla resistance movements steal guns from the occupiers. Guns are smuggled, guns are airdropped by supporting foreign powers. Resistance movements even make guns.

i don't think civilian gun control has anything to do with the ability of people to resist tyrrany. Other factors are way more important than the availability of guns.

And it may be noted that armed 'civilian' (or irregular) resistance, while it tied down considerable German forces particularly in Yugoslavia and Russia, never stopped the Germans from occupying a country, and never made them leave once a country was occupied. That always took someone else's army.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by matteos

There were uprisings, Like the Warsaw uprisings. Around 8,000 Polish rebels and some 200,000 civilians were killed. But also around 8,000 German soldiers. More guns may have meant more of this. Nobody would willingly go to their death without a fight.. After the first few years people had an inkling what the regime was up to.

I think you might want to refresh your memory regarding the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. There were no (non-Jewish) rebels involved in the uprising and the official number of Nazi fatalities was 17. It was almost certainly higher but probably didn't exceed 100.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/jewish...emium-1.564834

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I think you might want to refresh your memory regarding the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. There were no (non-Jewish) rebels involved in the uprising and the official number of Nazi fatalities was 17. It was almost certainly higher but probably didn't exceed 100.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/jewish...emium-1.564834

Myths serve nation building.

[matteos]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I think you might want to refresh your memory regarding the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. There were no (non-Jewish) rebels involved in the uprising and the official number of Nazi fatalities was 17. It was almost certainly higher but probably didn't exceed 100.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/jewish...emium-1.564834

Warsaw ghetto uprising is the Jewish one. I've got the figures from the Warsaw uprising which happened a year later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising

There is one interesting parallel that entirely supports Carsons argument. The Jews were poorly supplied and were crushed while inflicting few casualties.
The uprising a year later by the Poles in the same city inflicted 8000 casualties. Yes it was crushed (due to Russia not providing any aid when it could have done so).. But they had weapons and supplies.

So an armed populace can damage a tyrant far more significantly than an unarmed one.

[matteos]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I think people who want guns can always get guns. Guerrilla resistance movements steal guns from the occupiers. Guns are smuggled, guns are airdropped by supporting foreign powers. Resistance movements even make guns.

i don't think civilian gun control has anything to do with the ability of people to resist tyrrany. Other factors are way more important than the availability of guns.

And it may be noted that armed 'civilian' (or irregular) resistance, while it tied down considerable German forces particularly in Yugoslavia and Russia, never stopped the Germans from occupying a country, and never made them leave once a country was occupied. That always took someone else's army.

I don't think it's as easy as that. If I wanted to buy a gun in England I would have absolutely no clue about how to do so. I think it would be very difficult to obtain a significant number of weapons. I think back to the struggles in Ireland. Yes the IRA obtained guns, but not in vast numbers and a lot of their attacks were through bombs.

An poorly equipped opposition could inflict casualties through acts of terrorism, but it couldn't start a full out rebellion. It would always be a war of attrition. Against sort of moderate governments those acts of terrorism could lead to peace accords... But against someone like Hitler... It would lead to being hunted down and gassed rather quickly, once they started murdering and torturing everyone in the area.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by JBS...

“The likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed.”

And he is right!

The only reason you people spew this moronic nonsense is because it supports your narcissistic defense of this country's gun culture. A Glock under every pillow will prevent a despotic government from taking away all our rights. Repugnant is as repugnant does.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

The two links do not show where Carson is being malicious.

Perhaps. And if so, that would be the scariest thing about Carson. He doesn't realize when he's being malicious. Or...he doesn't care, nor do his supporters or his apologists.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by matteos

I don't think it's as easy as that. If I wanted to buy a gun in England I would have absolutely no clue about how to do so. I think it would be very difficult to obtain a significant number of weapons. I think back to the struggles in Ireland. Yes the IRA obtained guns, but not in vast numbers and a lot of their attacks were through bombs.

An poorly equipped opposition could inflict casualties through acts of terrorism, but it couldn't start a full out rebellion. It would always be a war of attrition. Against sort of moderate governments those acts of terrorism could lead to peace accords... But against someone like Hitler... It would lead to being hunted down and gassed rather quickly, once they started murdering and torturing everyone in the area.

If you really wanted a gun you'd start finding clues. And the IRA used bombs because bombs suited what they were up to, not because they lacked guns. Still, your points are basically correct. But they point to the limitations of armed resistance movements, not to the efficacy of mass civilian gun ownership. If there had been mass ownership of small arms in Germany in 1933, would Hitlers ascension to absolute power have been blocked? Of course not, that would have required mass sentiment in favor of using the arms against the Nazis, which did not exist.

When the mass sentiment was there, the masses are irresistible. Louis XVI's Swiss guards died, felled by a mob largely armed with sticks and stones. Mobilization does not depend on the presence or absence of guns. And without it, armed families attempting to resist the holocaust with pistols would just have been wiped-out on the spot, usually without casualties to the squads of soldiers that would do the work.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Perhaps. And if so, that would be the scariest thing about Carson. He doesn't realize when he's being malicious. Or...he doesn't care, nor do his supporters or his apologists.

Hello Ike, Netanyahu has somewhat taken Hitler off the hook. Now he is scary.