Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
And having guns probably wouldn't have made a difference. By and large the German population supported the Nazi regime up until the final 2-3 years of the war, and even if they had opposed it anti-Semitism was rampant among Germans anyway.

Suggesting that gun rights would have made a difference in anything that happened there is the height of "just not getting it."

I dunno...

I'd rather go down fighting with a Rutger in my hands than marched into a gas chamber.

But, that's me...

What's just you? Preferring to be dead more quickly from a gunshot wound when they rounded you up? I can respect that. The end result would have been the same was my point.

Edit: I would have probably used a variation of what Carson claimed he actually did when he had a gun held to him at a diner in Baltimore. I would have said, "nope, no Jews here. The people you want are next door".

But that's just me...and Ben.

Heh... Newt's for the Speakership:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2573731

Now, all we need is a Bush vs Clinton General Election... we can call this the 90's redux.

 whembly wrote:
Um... the Nazi did disarm the populace...

No, they didn't. The law they passed actually increased gun availability in almost all cases. The one exception being, of course, the Jews.

And the bigger issue, as LordofHats points out, is that Hitler was popularly supported, until the war started to turn bad and impact life at home.

And that's the reality of totalitarian governments that gun people just refuse to understand - these governments don't keep power because people lack the small arms. Look at the people in almost any regime and you'll find loads of guns. In Saddam's Iraq you could own guns that'd make an American survivalist green with envy. But the revolution doesn't come, for one of three reasons. Often these governments are popular despite their atrocities, because their atrocities are committed on only a minority of the population. Or they're unpopular, but still better than open war, because you still get food and shelter for your family, while in open war it's anyone guess. Or people are willing to risk taking up arms, but are ineffective, or incapable of even starting it, because there are informants and secret police everywhere, and building sophisticated cell structures that can be effective while still safe from total infiltration is really hard.

As I've said so many times before, getting a gun is the easy bit. But so many people like to pretend that's all there is to it, because they like to play imaginary roleplaying freedom fighter heroes, just by buying a gun.

Carson is playing up to that fantasy. Whether it's because he's telling a certain kind of Republican what they want to hear, or because he actually believes that nonsense himself, I don't know.

 whembly wrote:
I disagree because that flubb is old news now..

The assembled GOP were literally bringing it up this morning right before McCarthy said he won't go for the speakership.

Um... they also disarmed the less "desirables" and I believe the Social Democrats. Or anyone who won't play ball either.

Carson is appealing to those who believes an armed citizen keeps their government in check.

*shrugs*

Same sort of thing the Hillary Clinton proposing more gun control laws to appeal to the "do something!" crowd.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I disagree because that flubb is old news now..

The assembled GOP were literally bringing it up this morning right before McCarthy said he won't go for the speakership.

Hmmm... okay, I didn't see any but I'll take your word on it.

BTW, did you see Gowdy's letter to Cummings?

That was one hell of a bitch slap.

Waaaaaay too long, not reading that. I too will have to take your word for it.

 Ouze wrote:
Waaaaaay too long, not reading that. I too will have to take your word for it.

It's only 13 pages.

Edit: huh... I can't excerpt this pdf file. Lemme see if I can OCR it.

yeah, sigh. I'm reading it now.

edit: and yes, I went to copy and past something, and I can't, annoying.

Anybody hear that a Mexican drug lord put out a bounty 'dead or alive' notice on Donald trump for wanting to close the Mexican/U.S. border?

Personally I think this can mostly end well for Donald trump. I heard it was 100 million U.S. dollars on his head. What you have to understand is Trump now has a name and a face of who to go after. He can out-bid the bounty on him and put one on the drug lord for infinitely more money. After that Trump would be sure to win the election if he got a drug lord killed. First off the hit on him would be gone and 2nd who's going to beat that during the election.

"I plan do to this when I'm in office."

'Oh yeah. Well I got a Mexican drug lord killed during my campaign.'

"Crap."

This would even give him more weight to wanting the wall on the border (though even I think that's a crazy and fairly offensive idea).

Anyway I heard this on some news and i'll see if I can find it.

Here's one of the links.

https://news.yahoo.com/donald-trumps-capture-reportedly-worth-205905543.html

Search this and you can find any of the news stories you'd prefer to read.

'donald trump el chapo'

 whembly wrote:
Um... they also disarmed the less "desirables" and I believe the Social Democrats. Or anyone who won't play ball either.

No, I believe it was just the Jews.

Carson is appealing to those who believes an armed citizen keeps their government in check.

Yeah, and as I just explained, it's a very, very silly belief, that relies on having almost complete ignorance of how resistance against government works.

Same sort of thing the Hillary Clinton proposing more gun control laws to appeal to the "do something!" crowd.

So far Clinton's approach has been pretty minor. You'd have more success comparing to the Brady's campaign's black guns are scary campaign. To this day I have no idea if those guys honestly have no idea how guns work, or if they were just playing up to a crowd who had no idea how guns work.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Anybody hear that a Mexican drug lord put out a bounty 'dead or alive' notice on Donald trump for wanting to close the Mexican/U.S. border?

Personally I think this can mostly end well for Donald trump. I heard it was 100 million U.S. dollars on his head. What you have to understand is Trump now has a name and a face of who to go after. He can out-bid the bounty on him and put one on the drug lord for infinitely more money. After that Trump would be sure to win the election if he got a drug lord killed. First off the hit on him would be gone and 2nd who's going to beat that during the election.

"I plan do to this when I'm in office."

'Oh yeah. Well I got a Mexican drug lord killed during my campaign.'

"Crap."

This would even give him more weight to wanting the wall on the border (though even I think that's a crazy and fairly offensive idea).

Anyway I heard this on some news and i'll see if I can find it.

Here's one of the links.

https://news.yahoo.com/donald-trumps-capture-reportedly-worth-205905543.html

Search this and you can find any of the news stories you'd prefer to read.

'donald trump el chapo'

Drug lord or not, I don't think I'd want to vote for a president who brags about putting a kill bounty on someone.

 AduroT wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Anybody hear that a Mexican drug lord put out a bounty 'dead or alive' notice on Donald trump for wanting to close the Mexican/U.S. border?

Personally I think this can mostly end well for Donald trump. I heard it was 100 million U.S. dollars on his head. What you have to understand is Trump now has a name and a face of who to go after. He can out-bid the bounty on him and put one on the drug lord for infinitely more money. After that Trump would be sure to win the election if he got a drug lord killed. First off the hit on him would be gone and 2nd who's going to beat that during the election.

"I plan do to this when I'm in office."

'Oh yeah. Well I got a Mexican drug lord killed during my campaign.'

"Crap."

This would even give him more weight to wanting the wall on the border (though even I think that's a crazy and fairly offensive idea).

Anyway I heard this on some news and i'll see if I can find it.

Here's one of the links.

https://news.yahoo.com/donald-trumps-capture-reportedly-worth-205905543.html

Search this and you can find any of the news stories you'd prefer to read.

'donald trump el chapo'

Drug lord or not, I don't think I'd want to vote for a president who brags about putting a kill bounty on someone.

The bounty was put on trump's head first. He never put out a bounty or anything. At this point he has justification as the other guy started this. I'm not saying it's super right but what other way would you plan to get rid of a bounty on your head while not coming off as weak and also cowing down before a baddie. Honestly this is by far the best outcome for Trump to do as I said. People would be impressed and I know I'd be. Personally if Trump throws a hit back out on this guy it'd be infinitely better the way I see it. I mean another drug lord or drug lords would probably take chapo's place if he died. That said it justifies a bit of what Trump wants the wall for. I'm not saying it's a good thing overall but 'El Chapo' throwing around this threat will make Trump look better for it.

Anyway in my eyes if Trump died he has family and such to seek revenge as well as FBI and all that. If 'El Chapo' dies it's just another power shift. Somebody else will take 'El Chapo's' place like I'm sure it usually works out when a drug lord dies. They'll also see what happens when you mess with Trump and back off. Sure they won't take the building of the wall well but if they truly felt threatened they'd find a way to work around the wall or just deal with it. It's not like building a massive wall around the border would be easy to patrol at all times even with all the rednecks in the southwest (not saying the southwest in general but the much fewer rednecks in those areas).

Who put a bounty on who fist doesn't matter when one says they wouldn't want a President that brags about putting bounties on someone's head. We expect that behavior from a drug lord, who most likely has put a lot of bounties out there, but we don't want that from a person seeking high office. Unless they are a grandstanding narcissist, of course.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
At this point he has justification as the other guy started this.

I think any time a potential president is using 'he started it' as a defense there's cause for concern.

I'm not saying it's super right but what other way would you plan to get rid of a bounty on your head while not coming off as weak and also cowing down before a baddie. Honestly this is by far the best outcome for Trump to do as I said.

Why does he have to respond at all? Is he going to lose credibility in the playground? Will it lead to the other kids getting together behind the swings and talking smack about him?

You know you guys must totally be right. He should just ignore the fact a 'hit' was called out on him. In fact he should just let the guy kill him because that's what geniuses do. Or maybe he should try doing the equivalent of negotiating with terrorists only leading to more people trying the same. You know you guys totally know what'd help Trump most in this situation. Apparently looking like a coward or getting himself in the line of fire is the best option here.

Ben Carson's comments about Jews suffering the Holocaust because they didn't have guns, is probably the most ignorant utterance I've ever heard from any Republican presidential candidate, ever, and I've been on God's earth nigh on 40 years!

Carson makes Bob Dole look like FDR!

By his logic, his ancestors only have themselves to blame for being slaves, because they never had guns.

By his logic, Native Americans lost their lands because they never had guns...wait they did!

If Jesus Christ had been armed, then he wouldn't have been crucified....

I could go on and on.

This man should not be entrusted with running a hotdog stand, never mind a global superpower.

What an idiot.

Really, if Trump puts out a hit on the guy and brags about getting him killed, it wouldn't matter what the voters think because he'd probably simply be arrested for murder.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
You know you guys must totally be right. He should just ignore the fact a 'hit' was called out on him. In fact he should just let the guy kill him because that's what geniuses do.

Why would he ignore it or just let the guy kill him? Do you really believe that when something like this happens the only response is to get the other guy first? Do you live in a mid-90s gangster movie?

Anyhow, Trump is a rich and connected man. He has vast personal resources to cover excellent personal security in case anything real comes out of this. And on top of that he's also got great government connections and personal clout to ensure the US and Mexican governments take this as seriously as it should be taken.

So Trump should, you know, respond like a grown adult living in the real would.

Or maybe he should try doing the equivalent of negotiating with terrorists only leading to more people trying the same.

And where does that come from? Who suggested negotiation? Who has ever responded to a death threat from a crimelord with asking that crimelord to sit down and talk things out? Why would you even mention that in order to reject it?

 sebster wrote:
Who has ever responded to a death threat from a crimelord with asking that crimelord to sit down and talk things out? Why would you even mention that in order to reject it?

Bro, have you ever even seen the Sopranos? If you ask for a sit-down, the other guy has to honor it, even if it doesn't work out and then you have to go to the mattresses.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/10/graydon-carter-donald-trump

Like so many bullies, Trump has skin of gossamer. He thinks nothing of saying the most hurtful thing about someone else, but when he hears a whisper that runs counter to his own vainglorious self-image, he coils like a caged ferret. Just to drive him a little bit crazy, I took to referring to him as a “short-fingered vulgarian” in the pages of Spy magazine. That was more than a quarter of a century ago. To this day, I receive the occasional envelope from Trump. There is always a photo of him—generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers. I almost feel sorry for the poor fellow because, to me, the fingers still look abnormally stubby. The most recent offering arrived earlier this year, before his decision to go after the Republican presidential nomination. Like the other packages, this one included a circled hand and the words, also written in gold Sharpie: “See, not so short!” I sent the picture back by return mail with a note attached, saying, “Actually, quite short.” Which I can only assume gave him fits.

So many lols.

whembly wrote:
Won't happen.

The Cons are flexing their muscle now.

Maybe Paul Ryan will save the day:

"Now"? The far right cons are a large part of the reason for multiple years of impasse and crap governance by Congress. Paul Ryan doesn't want to be Speaker. He's said it multiple times.

sebster wrote:
Yeah, the story floating around is that McCarthy couldn't win any votes from the Freedom caucus, and without them he wouldn't have enough votes.

Honestly, as much as I like the Ameican culture of crossing the aisle and voting for conscience and district over party lines, there's times where you just have to except party voting or you're not really a party anymore. Once the party has decided its nomination for speaker, then anyone who doesn't follow the party line and vote for that person needs to be booted.

I think the big thing is that for actual politician Rs, the amount of damage done by imbecilic ding dongs like Chaffetz, is becoming fully apparent and threatening their own positions. When part of your caucus is threatening your leadership, you have to decide if having their numbers is worth it. I suspect it's becoming increasingly apparent that it is not, in fact, worth it.

Ouze wrote:So many lols.

Lolz. I was discussing this yesterday. It's basically put Boehner in a great position. He's already announced he wants to resign, so it's no longer exactly worthwhile to threaten him with revoking his position. The Ds and more moderate Rs are going to back him. It allows him to put forward things the far right Rs don't want but that would actually pass with moderate D support.

It's crazy.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Um... they also disarmed the less "desirables" and I believe the Social Democrats. Or anyone who won't play ball either.

No, I believe it was just the Jews.

Not just the jews... sure, the "pure race" was a thing and it was popular. But, there were other groups/people who resisted the Nazi as well...

My point stands.

Carson is appealing to those who believes an armed citizen keeps their government in check.

Yeah, and as I just explained, it's a very, very silly belief, that relies on having almost complete ignorance of how resistance against government works.

History is littered with events where certain populations were disarmed for the express purpose of eradication. feth man, the Jews in Warsaw rebelled in '44:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

So, all this talk that "it wouldn't have made a difference so stop talking about Gun Rights" is asinine. Every human being has the right to defend themselves from fething murder.

Same sort of thing the Hillary Clinton proposing more gun control laws to appeal to the "do something!" crowd.

So far Clinton's approach has been pretty minor. You'd have more success comparing to the Brady's campaign's black guns are scary campaign. To this day I have no idea if those guys honestly have no idea how guns work, or if they were just playing up to a crowd who had no idea how guns work.

Funny thing... the US gun right's ARE regulated. MOAR regulation isn't going to knock sense into those who break the laws anyways.

*shrugs*




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
So many lols.

No one fething knows anymore...

Apparently, Ryan is "reconsidering" is "hell no" to currently "no comment".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/10/09/the-daily-202-paul-ryan-seriously-thinking-about-running-for-speaker-as-pressure-mounts/

 whembly wrote:
So, all this talk that "it wouldn't have made a difference so stop talking about Gun Rights" is asinine. Every human being has the right to defend themselves from fething murder.

See, the sad part is that there is not only a wild disconnect from these two statements, but no one has done anything to challenge the later in this conversation, and you've given absolutely zero reason to support the former except to proclaim the later as gospel.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So, all this talk that "it wouldn't have made a difference so stop talking about Gun Rights" is asinine. Every human being has the right to defend themselves from fething murder.

See, the sad part is that there is not only a wild disconnect from these two statements, but no one has done anything to challenge the later in this conversation, and you've given absolutely zero reason to support the former except to proclaim the later as gospel.

Gordy said:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
The "I don't know" is certainly better than this: Ben Carson said today that Adolf Hitler’s mass murder of Jews “would have been greatly diminished” if German citizens had not been disarmed by the Nazi regime.

You said:

 LordofHats wrote:
And having guns probably wouldn't have made a difference. By and large the German population supported the Nazi regime up until the final 2-3 years of the war, and even if they had opposed it anti-Semitism was rampant among Germans anyway.

Suggesting that gun rights would have made a difference in anything that happened there is the height of "just not getting it."

What is it that Carson is "just not getting it"?

Had the Jews (and other undesirables) not be disarmed by the Weimer Republic/Nazi regime, does anyone think they'll still obediently be herded to the death camps?

There's a plethora of dumb things Carson has said... this? This ain't one of them.

Today I learned the Nazis, which fought the Red Army across half of Russia, would have been stopped if the German Jews still had their hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So, all this talk that "it wouldn't have made a difference so stop talking about Gun Rights" is asinine. Every human being has the right to defend themselves from fething murder.

See, the sad part is that there is not only a wild disconnect from these two statements, but no one has done anything to challenge the later in this conversation, and you've given absolutely zero reason to support the former except to proclaim the later as gospel.

Gordy said:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
The "I don't know" is certainly better than this: Ben Carson said today that Adolf Hitler’s mass murder of Jews “would have been greatly diminished” if German citizens had not been disarmed by the Nazi regime.

You said:

 LordofHats wrote:
And having guns probably wouldn't have made a difference. By and large the German population supported the Nazi regime up until the final 2-3 years of the war, and even if they had opposed it anti-Semitism was rampant among Germans anyway.

Suggesting that gun rights would have made a difference in anything that happened there is the height of "just not getting it."

What is it that Carson is "just not getting it"?

Had the Jews (and other undesirables) not be disarmed by the Weimer Republic/Nazi regime, does anyone think they'll still obediently be herded to the death camps?

There's a plethora of dumb things Carson has said... this? This ain't one of them.

True. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising did happen. Jews did forcibly resist the Nazis when they had the means to do so. If more of them had been armed there is no reason to not believe that instances of organized armed resistance such as what happened in Warsaw would have been widespread. While armed Jews would not have been able to single handedly defeat Nazi Germany it certainly would have allowed Jewish people to die fighting against their attackers instead of being taken to death camps and dying there instead.

 Ouze wrote:
Today I learned the Nazis, which fought the Red Army across half of Russia, would have been stopped if the German Jews still had their hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

Ouze... that's not what I was saying.

Nor was Carson either.

Pick something else to ding Carson... there's better stuff than this.

Having sidearms isn't really going to help much against a two million-strong military with tanks. The idea that personal weapons help to defend the people against the government is best dis-proven by a simple consideration of every totalitarian state of the 20th century.

If I were a betting man... Dr. Carson read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1598131621/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1598131621&linkCode=as2&tag=insta0c-20