We apparently do NOT learn from history!
This is a discussion on Violate any part the of 2A then are a Commie, Nazis, Facist, or at least a Socialist within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Violate any part the of 2A then are a Commie, Nazis, Facist, or at least a Socialist Adolf Hitler – Dictator of Germany World War ...
Violate any part the of 2A then are a Commie, Nazis, Facist, or at least a Socialist
Adolf Hitler – Dictator of Germany World War Two 1942
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country."
Admiral Yamamoto - Japanese Navy World War Two
"You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Advising Japan's military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japan's decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength. This delay gave our industrial infrastructure time to gear up for the conflict and was decisive in our later victory.
Benito Mussolini – Dictator of Italy 1931
“The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. ... They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
Mohandas K. Gandhi
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."
We apparently do NOT learn from history!
Proverbs 27:12 says: “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.”
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
Aw come on...
Most of our kids cant even name the VP, the Secretary of State or even the Speaker of the house.
Ever watch Leno when he asks basic questions to college students?
Really hard questions like who fought the civil war, or how many states there are in the union. Even the great Obama himself stated that there were 58 states one time.
Why would anyone expect that they would learn from history, especially since most of them have never been taught it?
So in effect you are correct, dictators must have 2A rights out of the way for them to succeed.
The first step towards any sort of dictatorship is to remove arms from the citizens.
Smith & Wesson M&P9cCrossbreed Supertuck
Nitecore EX10 R2
SOG Access Card 2.0
Good grief. Are you serious?
Try this: post the definitions to each of those terms (Communist, facist, Nazi, and socialist), and then come back and make that statement with a straight face.
Here are quotes of the biggest Commie there has been:
Joseph Stalin - Russian - Commie
If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.
The only real power comes out of a long rifle.
Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem.
Death solves all problems - no man, no problem.
Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach.
You cannot make a revolution with silk gloves.
In case some did not know - Hilter was a Nazis, Mussolini was a Facist, British are Socialist, and Stalin was a Commie.
These Leaders and in some cases the Founders of these evil organizations words says it all about them and their kind.
Alright, since you won't, I'll do the leg-work:
Socialism: A series of economic theories describing limited state ownership and/or administration of the means of production and the distribution of goods and services. At its roots is the philosophy that the state (any government body) is better funded than the individual and ideally works for no profit (beyond that which is set aside for the government employees; in other words, the state is not trying to grow its business, and ideally can provide a good or service for less than if that good or service were provided from a privately owned individual/organization. Whatever their flavor, socialists believe that in capitalism wealth accumulates in pockets, and the goal is to more evenly spread the wealth (greater taxation on wealthier individuals, less taxation on poorer individuals, etc.).
Fascism: A radical form of nationalism whose goals are to create a single, unified state (to create something greater than the sum of its parts). Virtually all of fascism advocates some level of violence against other nations and social organization in a "Social Darwinist" perspective; through conflict, the strongest will emerge and guarantee the survival of the state. Fascism requires subordination to the state.
Nazism: Just like fascism is a radical form of nationalism, so to is Nazism is a radical version of fascism. It is/was driven by a variety of different political ideologies, borrowing both socialist and fascist elements to encourage a strong state, as well as opposing philosophies of anti-parliamentarism (opposing a parliamentary-style of legislation because it has no independent-party to check or veto the parliament's actions) and anti-communism. The easy way to understand this is that Nazism incorporated whatever was required to accomplish its goals; Jews were its favorite enemy, and it needed a bigger military to fund its campaigns, so limited disarmament of the people made sense for their goals (there are a lot of reasons why their gun control policies never relaxed, most of them having to do with the state of post-war Germany being in no position to do so and having bigger fish to fry). While racism is inherent in both fascism and Nazism, it is more a state policy in fascism, where in Nazism it is part of a philosophical ideology. Nazism's economic ideology is/was to create a non-capitalist, non-communist economic system, which it could not do at the height of its power because of its to war constraints.
Communism: This is an ideology focused both on the political and socioeconomic arrangements of society. Communism in its purest form is a true democracy: no states, no oppression, all decisions made democratically with every member of the society having equal say. In its political leanings, communism can be considered a sub-class of socialism, but Marx never described how it would structure its economic foundation. It was simply described as common ownership over the means of production, meaning everybody owns the factory, therefore everybody would benefit from its work and from working hard in it. Communism virtually requires a planned economy, whereas socialism is compatible with a market economy (just not an overly 'free' market).
Question: Where in any of this do you see opposition to or support of the individual right to keep and bear arms?
Answer: Only in Nazism.
I get it, it's morally repulsive to ever want to limit one's natural right to protect themselves, and that there is no tool better suited for doing so than firearms. What I don't get is the absolutely irresponsible name-calling and witch-hunting that I see here and elsewhere of economic and political ideologies that have nothing at all to do with the right to keep in bear arms. Some of the strongest arguments made for the right to keep and bear arms being protected are made by fascists (with the desire to have a strong populous ready to combat rival nations) and socialists (such as Eric Arthur Blair, AKA George Orwell, and the penned thoughts of Mark Twain).
For those you know who do believe in limiting or eliminating our inherent right to keep and bear those tools necessary to protect ourselves, call them out for what they are, not for what they're not. I'm willing to bet most of the people you know who don't support your right to keep and bear arms aren't adherents to Nazism. This whole thing is as stupid as using liberal as a dirty word or conservative as the cure-all of political ideologies, when neither have much at all to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
A veteran, whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve is someone who, at one point in his/her life, wrote a blank check made payable
to "The United States of America" for an amount of "up to and including my life." Author unknown
Hmmm....lets see.Where in any of this do you see opposition to or support of the individual right to keep and bear arms?
Answer: Only in Nazism.
How about opening up a history book and seeing how a Nazi,Socialist or Communist supports your right to bear arms.
Lets look at a few of the famous names that most over 40 can name and most under 20 cant. Mao,Lenin,Hitler,Mussolini,Pol-Pot,Marx,Hussein,Qaddafi,Amin.Stalin and the list goes on and on and on. Yet these adherents to their particular style of government are responsible for the genocide of millions of people.
Cut the rhetoric and see it for what it was. Someone that professes to be a friend that wants to uphold your rights while holding a pistol to the back of your head isn't much of a friend.
Look at your President. He's a Socialist and he cant stand the thought of an armed population.
Actions speak louder than words here.
Believe what you want. I'll choose the facts.
A grand effort of the populace will not effect the outcome of a government sponsored genocide no matter how well armed the citizens. There is NO dictatorial reason for the US government to disarm the people. We are already controlled via taxes.Lets look at a few of the famous names that most over 40 can name and most under 20 cant. Mao,Lenin,Hitler,Mussolini,Pol-Pot,Marx,Hussein,Qaddafi,Amin.Stalin and the list goes on and on and on. Yet these adherents to their particular style of government are responsible for the genocide of millions of people.And that has NOTHING to do with his economic worldview.Look at your President. He's a Socialist and he cant stand the thought of an armed population.Exactly. Do you have any specific actions in mind? Let's not rehash the old, defunct bill again. Obama has done NOTHING to cause the tin hat crowd concern. I am far, far more concerned with disarming the military than private citizens. He can actually DO that.Actions speak louder than words here.
By the way, BAC, liberal is a dirty word.
Oh my. Got to agree with BAC and even with most of what SD had to say. And Libertarian hit the nail on the head too, "The knee-jerk talk show baloney gets to be a bit much sometimes."
You gentlemen amuse me.
You're always good for a laugh.
For that, I would like to thank each of you.
I get that some of you guys are hung up on the apples and oranges argument that none of the isms above have anything directly to do with gun rights. But name a communist, nazi, facist, or socialist govt. that is friendly to gun rights.
The one thing common in all of the political and economic systems stated is a strong central govt. Logic would dictate that a strong govt. would not want an armed populace to oppose the govts. power.
The Second Amendment ...... Because crime SHOULD be a hazardous occupation.
If you want to piss off a conservative, lie to him.
If you want to piss off a liberal, tell him the truth.