And that, curiously enough, brought the FAUX NOOZ nuts to the inevitable conclusion that President Obama, like NaziHitlerStalin, is about to do the same to every gun owner in this country. To the stupids at FAUX NOOZ and their easily duped viewers, this is the unvarnished truth and YouKnowWho is coming to get you AND your GUNZ!
Sean Hannity:
“We don’t talk a lot about — what were the intentions of our founders and framers? And we have Stalin, um, we have Hitler, we have countries, tyrannical. They talked a lot about that.”
FAUX's Andrew Napolitano:
"There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century -- from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad -- have disarmed their people, and only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. [...]
If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust. "[Foxnews.com, 1/10/13]
So what are the facts? I'll let "radicalcentrist" over at TPM explain:
"OK. What about Hitler and guns? Let's take a look: Hitler did not take away guns from Germans. He actually loosened the very strict gun laws of the Weimar Republic. He didn't rule Germany as a tyrant because Germans were unarmed; he stayed in power because most Germans at the time supported him. Armed opposition is no more effective than unarmed opposition against tyrants in our time. Look at the list of tyrannies that have fallen to non-violent protests: the Soviet Union, East Germany and all the East Bloc dictatorships, the military regimes in Argentina, Chile and Brazil, Mubarak, Tunisia, the Shah of Iran, apartheid South Africa, Marcos in the Philippines, and many others. Now look at the record of armed opposition-Libya- Qaddafi only fell because of NATO intervention; Syria-50,000 dead and the outcome is still uncertain. Let the record speak."
In answer to a statement from another commenter about Hitler taking guns away from the persecuted Jews:
"If your point is that he took guns away from Jews, the answer is that he took EVERYTHING away from Jews. The idea that the Jews of Germany would have somehow beaten off the SS in pitched shootouts is pure unadulterated bs. There were armed resistance groups in the occupied countries and while they were heroic, their effect on the outcome of the war was negligible. The Nazis were beaten by Allied armies, not ragtag bands with guns. If you'd rather, we could look at the record of armed resistance to the US Government, starting with Shay's Rebellion and the Whisky Revolt, down to the Black Panthers, Ruby Ridge and Waco. Who won all of those? And yet the peaceful protests of MLK, women's rights protests and anti Vietnam War achieved almost all their goals."
Did we actually believe that this nonsense would subside once Mr. Obama achieved his second electoral victory? I didn't. I assumed the crazies would double-down on their frenzied attacks on PBO. And so they did.
The re-election of our country's first bi-racial president has caused hundreds of people to lose their minds and all sense of proportion in the issue over guns and gun violence. Any movement to tighten the laws and restrict access to guns has caused them to suffer complete mental collapse.
Luckily, a majority of Americans have not bought into that insanity and stand with President Obama on wanting to find solutions to our national disgrace.
The malcontents who compare President Obama to Stalin, Hitler, and other monsters are a disgrace to reasoned discourse and clearly in the minority, eaten up by their self-defeating hatreds and bigotry.
UPDATE:
January 23, 2013 Americans Back Obama's Proposals to Address Gun ViolenceCriminal background checks on gun sales garner highest level of support by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- Given the chance to vote "for" or "against" each of nine key proposals included in President Barack Obama's plan to reduce gun violence, Americans back all nine.
Americans are most likely to be in favor of requiring background checks for all gun sales (91%), increasing funding for mental health programs aimed at youth (82%),
increasing funding for programs to train law enforcement and schools in responding to active armed attacks (79%),
and increasing criminal penalties for people who buy guns for others -- so-called straw purchasers (75%).
Looking at the German example, let's not forget that Hitler had the army on his side.
ReplyDeleteIn the US, our military trends to the conservative side of the ledger.
Who out there believes our armed forces would turn against their own families and friends in some sort of governmental coup against themselves?
In the purported words of that noted pugilist Mike Tyson... "it's ludicrous, ludicrous I tell ya."
.
ReplyDelete"The malcontents who compare President Obama to Stalin, Hitler, and other monsters are a disgrace to reasoned discourse and clearly in the minority, eaten up by their self-defeating hatreds and bigotry."
And it is an absolute joy to watch the self-hate filled minority marinate in their mendacity! They have lost, they know they have lost, and have no one to blame but themselves.
Now it is time to move forward without the RW hate-monger LOSERS.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
I do not believe Obama is a Hitler or Stalin for the new millennium, so I'll push past that and press on to the heart of the matter.
ReplyDeleteDictators do not like opponents having guns. Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Pinochet, Castro... think up your own favorite potentate. They all saw an armed public as a threat. It is a historical fact.
So, by all means, push back on those who would compare our president to a 20th century dictator, but do not distort historical truth in the process.
I recommend this paper to everyone from Fordham Law Review:
On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and
Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)
The author concludes that Hitler did liberalize gun laws for "loyal Germans" (Because they weren't a threat! They were on his side!). But he denied them to Gypsies and other "undesirables" while forcibly disarming Jews of not just guns, but also "bludgeoning and stabbing devices."
But what I most wish everyone would read is on page 678:
Our deepest cultural values are in the balance. What we need today more than anything-in this particular debate as in other cultural debates-is not cultural warfare, nor cultural accommodation, but critical thought, more research, and new scholarship.
Invoking Hilter and screaming hysterically about Faux NOOZ won't get us there.
Comparing President Obama to infamous dictators is over the top; but so is the blithe dismissal of historical fact.
Hitler and the Nazi regime encouraged the shooting sports and even provided funding for civilian marksmanship programs, and made it easier to carry a gun (unless you were Jewish). Wiki it.
ReplyDeleteTim
In the age of Predator Drones the US government does not fear the NRA's "rag tag band of freedom fighters". This bunch of 60 year old out of shape guys (RN, LOL) are no threat. This ain't Star Wars or the Terminator so that logic in and of itself is a joke. What they really fear is Obama's negro army marching up their driveway and forcing them to gay marry each other, right after the government gets it's hand all over their medicare and Social Security. (only the last line was the joke part).
ReplyDelete"Invoking Hilter and screaming hysterically about Faux NOOZ won't get us there."
ReplyDeleteI invoke FAUX NOOZ because they deserve to be ridiculed for promoting the foolish Hitler/Stalin/Nazi comparison. They deserve this ridicule because they fancy themselves a cable news corporation, when everyone knows that are anything BUT that.
I don't know if you ever watch PBS's The News Hour, but try to catch it sometime to see how they handle reporting the news--it is NOTHING like the clown show on FAUX NOOZ.
SF,
ReplyDeleteI think you are arguing the wrong issue. Obama is not trying to disarm the people. He is attempting to keep the guns out of the hands of people who have no business or ability to properly handle them.
Seen on a RIGHT WING blog. Those people really are the enemy within:
ReplyDeleteFrom your friend Free Thinke, Shaw:
"Comparisons to Hitler may seem facile -- even puerile -- and yet ...
Let's face it our historic treatment of The African Negro is the SOLE reason we are beset with the political climate we suffer with today.
If we hadn't benefited from the Slave Trade early on, Barack Obama would never have been even so much as a gleam in his sub-Saharan African-savage father's eye."
They really are racist pigs. Why do you have anything to do with them?
Rand Paul was quite abusive for a first term Senator. Wonder if it is because he trails Hillary in polling in his own state ?
ReplyDeleteSome of the pro gun advocates I've seen interviewed, are the kind of people who should be "checked" before we let them have a gun.
ReplyDeleteOne guy on PM-CNN was screaming, eyes popping, drooling, raving, with hate clearly guiding his comments.
That's the kind of guy I do not want to have a gun.
Mississippi's GOP Governor Says No American Lacks Health Care
ReplyDeleteJerry:
ReplyDeleteI am not one of those who allege the president is trying to disarm his opponents.
I am merely trying to establish what the historical facts are.
Yikes Shaw, you're really on a role. How is one example of a conservative leaning blog constitute plural?
ReplyDeleteFurther, are there not conservatives and conservative blogs that do not represent the NRA, LaPierre, Nugent, and the other nut of a couple weeks ago.
That's a very good post, Shaw. Unfortunately, it and others like it won't enlighten the fantasy-based crowd. They're into comfort food for what passes for their minds — "red meat" political blather, mostly.
ReplyDelete"The idea that the Jews of Germany would have somehow beaten off the SS in pitched shootouts is pure unadulterated bs."
Absolutely. So is the notion that a random bunch of gummint-hating, middle-aged wingnuts with hunting rifles and Glocks, or even with AR-15's and AK-47's, would win out over a similar-size contingent of FBI, U.S. Marshalls, ATF officers, etc.
The Constitution prohibits the U.S. military from being used against U.S. citizens (although a breach of that was recently suggested). If this were to change, I'll tell you right now that one infantry platoon from today's Army would lay waste to a "force" of heavily armed, beer-bellied bubbas three times its size before the bubbas knew what hit them.
Combat effectiveness isn't just a matter of who's got more guns, whose guns spray more bullets faster, or even who's a good marksman. Training, physical conditioning, discipline, positive attitude and teamwork are all vital components. So is knowing your enemy, working with your surroundings and having rehearsed the right moves until they can be executed almost automatically in scary and confusing situations. Today's infantry is far more skilled than the corps that fought in Vietnam, and they were no slouches.
Some paranoid personalities of the fantasy-based crowd posture and prattle about using their guns to defend themselves against our government. The reality is that what they're talking about would be group suicide by cop kicked up several notches. Let me give them a warning: He who goes into battle side by side with untrained, reckless hotheads might go down fighting, but in an amazingly short time he will go down.
"SF,
ReplyDeleteI think you are arguing the wrong issue. Obama is not trying to disarm the people. He is attempting to keep the guns out of the hands of people who have no business or ability to properly handle them."
If Obama gets his way, gun enthusiasts will be spared the backlash sure to come if we continue on our current course, having more and more-deadly massacres thanks to murderers possessing ever more efficient combat weapons with which to do their killing.
Ironically, the inevitable backlash, should it come to that, could easily bring about the kind of Draconian restrictions gun fanatics claim Obama is after now.
"What we need today more than anything-in this particular debate as in other cultural debates-is not cultural warfare, nor cultural accommodation, but critical thought, more research, and new scholarship."
ReplyDeleteIt bears mentioning the NRA lobbied for, and of course got, a ban on federal funding for research and scholarship into gun violence, gun-related crimes and such. One of President Obama's executive orders, if I understand correctly, is to reinstate funding for obviously needed research and scholarship in this area.
First off, RN, I gave two examples: Drudge and Free Thinke's blog.
ReplyDeleteSecond, there are more, and anyone who surfs the 'net has seen them.
The point of this post is not about those blogs and news organizations who don't compare President Obama to HitlerStalinNaziMao, etc.
The point of this post is to bring attention to the pseudo-cable news station, Fox News, and those bloggers who do.
I know that you find it necessary to monitor my posts and make sure they're "balanced" and that I don't use just one example to indict an entire group of people.
BTW, I found your title post today quite curious:
Responsible Government or Intrusive Big Brother Nanny State Mentality on the March...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
If anyone doubts the presence of Nanny State Progressive Mentality in the nation's democrats one need look no further than Rep. Mitch Greenlick, from Portland Oregon and his ridiculously absurd anti smoking legislation that he introduced in Oregon.
Ah yes. I found Greenlick and his proposal quite curious as well. But, he does represent that curiously extreme statist tendency that is becoming more prevalent in the broadening extremes on both sides of the political spectrum.
DeleteIt's the middle Shaw, it's the middle. Curious indeed.
Oh, don't hold your breath waiting for an apology from your friend dmarks. :-)
SWA: "It bears mentioning the NRA lobbied for, and of course got, a ban on federal funding for research and scholarship into gun violence, gun-related crimes and such. One of President Obama's executive orders, if I understand correctly, is to reinstate funding for obviously needed research and scholarship in this area."
ReplyDeleteIn addition to that piece harebrained legislation from the NRA, it also bears repeating that the GOP led Florida legislature (with the help of the NRA goons) was successful in passing a law that forbade pediatricians from asking parents if they owned firearms and how those parents keep them safely out of reach of their children.
Those two outrageous lobbied-for pieces of legislation by the NRA need to be put out there in front of all Americans so that they can see what a radical and dangerously unhinged organization the NRA is.
"Florida Gov. Rick Scott on June 1, 2011, approved the National Rifle Assn.-backed law. Under the legislation, physicians who asked patients about gun ownership without justification, entered unnecessary information about such ownership in medical records or discriminated against gun-owning patients faced possible sanctions by the state medical board.
The NRA and others said asking patients about guns in the home was a violation of privacy.
Florida physicians, including representatives from the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Academy of Family Physicians, challenged the law in court. They argued that the statute harmed doctor-patient communication and went against professional guidelines on counseling parents about environmental risks to children."
We will hear more from Jindal. I suspect a lot more. Cain, maybe not so much.
ReplyDeleteWe have seen, and will continue to see the results of the growing polarization in our politics. It is indeed unfortunate.
It has gotten too personal and extreme exaggeration is the mode of operation.
Dmarks has libeled me more than once on your blog and others as well.
ReplyDeleteI understand that what I write about so disturbs him and his ilk that the only way for them to retaliate is to spread lies about me.
Either that, or he's having trouble with his memory.
I searched my blog and found where he misremembered who wrote something about Jindal. He attributed it to me, when I actually QUOTED Ann Althouse's text on Jindal.
Ann Althouse mentioned Jindal's race, not I, and I ridiculed her for it.
So dmarks must have read that 4 years ago, and in his narrow mind, attributed the words to me. (He did the same thing on a Herman Cain post where I quoted someone else saying something about Cain, and dmarks claimed those words as mine.)
He's a dangerous wacko who sullies people's reputations because his memory is faulty--purposely or not.
Shame on him!
I have argued with those on my side who have hinted at armed rebellion. My standard question is, who do you shoot first? A cop? A soldier?
ReplyDeleteDo you attack the National Guard armory in your town?
It's preposterous. Having said that, having an armed citizenry jealous of its liberties changes the equation. Instead of just using its overwhelming monopoly on violence, government officials are more circumspect regarding their actions.
When government (or individuals) know there will be no pushback, overreach is the inevitable result.
The government is not the problem. The problem is the people WE ELECT to the government.
ReplyDelete"The government is not the problem. The problem is the people WE ELECT to the government."
ReplyDeleteI can agree with that. The US Constitution is a perfectly serviceable document. Now, if only the baboons and jackals we elect would follow it.
Jindal and others are not the Republican leadership. Listen to the actual Republican leaders like Bohner and McConnell, and you see what Shaw is talking about.
ReplyDeleteSF,
ReplyDeleteWe need to stop electing "baboons and jackals".
"The NRA and others said asking patients about guns in the home was a violation of privacy."
ReplyDeleteThat is absolutely preposterous, from the standpoint of logic or law. It's one of the most outrageously absurd contentions I've ever heard. I'm surprised the court didn't throw it out with a summary judgment.
First, a question can't invade privacy unless the answer is elicited through blackmail, torture or other duress. All a parent has to do is say "I don't think that's any of your business."
Second, every medical professional and even nonprofessional medical workers are trained from the git-go about the importance of medical confidentiality. Telling a pediatrician you've got a couple of guns at home is tantamount to releasing the information into a vacuum. He or she will tell you to secure them so the kids don't get hold of them, and that's the end of it.
Unbelievable!