THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.
President Obama’s real problem was that he ran his mouth, and issued an empty threat. Now, actually doing the right thing in Syria looks like weakness, and the President’s word cannot be either trusted or even taken seriously.
Good Stuff
Get your "Don't Blame Me" bumper sticker, via Cafe Press, by William Teach of The Pirate's Cove. Click on the sticker to order, only $3.99 each.
C D Collins
Kentucky native CD Collins follows the story- telling traditions of the South, both as a solo artist and when accom- panied by musicians. As one of originators of the early ‘90s resurgence of spoken-word with live music, her work has been archived in award-winning compact discs.C D is an old friend of mine from Mt Sterling.
Voluntarily Pay More Taxes
Many of our friends on the left believe that we are undertaxed. If you believe that you don't pay enough in taxes, you can use the button above to connect to the United States Treasury Department, and voluntarily pay more in taxes.
National Debt to the penny
To find the National Debt on any given day, click on the icon, and fill in the dates for which the information is desired. At the end of Monday, March 19, 2012, more had been added to the national debt in three years and two months under President Obama than had been added in eight years under President Bush.Shop Amazon.com
Blogroll
- American Power
- Blonde Sagacity
- Bridging the Gap
- bRight & Early
- Caffeinated Thoughts
- Head Noises
- Hot Air
- Laughing Conservative
- Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion
- Midnight Blue
- Patterico's Pontifications
- Pirate's Cove
- Powerline
- Protein Wisdom
- Red State
- Rovin's World
- Sister Toldjah
- The Lonely Conservative
- The Other McCain
- Truth Before Dishonor
- Victory Girls
Publications
Site Meter
I saw that movie, too. And my reaction was “Thank God for the NRA and the 2nd Amendment!”
A movie? I was with people held hostage by their government. It was called North Vietnam. I know commies close-up and believe me they ain’t no Hollywood movie.
[...] one to grow on: First Street Journal offers a picture worth a thousand [...]
The bumper sticker has been proven correct over and over again. It’s: “When guns are outlawed, only Outlaws will have guns.” That alleged soldier is an outlaw, since no real soldier would be a Judge, Jury, and Executioner all for executing a man simply over his religion.
Uh-huh:
—–
The Myth Of Hitler’s Gun Ban
Whenever a politician, or anyone else, starts talking about regulating guns, it’s a safe bet that someone will bring up how Hitler supposedly outlawed guns in Germany, which supposedly enabled him to do all the mischief he did.
[...]
The gun culture is right about one thing, however. Hitler really did enact a new gun law. But it was in 1938, not 1935 – well after the NAZIs already had the country in its iron grip. Furthermore, the new law in many ways LOOSENED gun restrictions. For example, it greatly expanded the numbers who were exempt, it lowered the legal age of possession from 20 to 18, and it completely lifted restriction on all guns except handguns, as well as on ammunition.
—–
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.
Adolf Hitler
You can post the “myth” of Hitler’s gun ban all you want. You can also post the myth that Hitler killed Jews (just ask Al Jazeera ). After all, it’s on the internet so it has to be true. And I’m a French model.
As pithy as the above photo is, it could be better. How about the Editor photoshop Pho into the uniform holding the Lugar and some “rich” guy, perhaps a Wall Street banker on his knees instead of a Jew?
I’ve seen a lot of crap on the internet but this is the first time I read someone defending Hitler. But as they say, birds of a feather.
Stalin starved millions, Pol Pot didn’t use guns, a garden hoe did the job. Abortionists use scissors to terminate unwanted infants, and Hitler’s mass killers used gas, guns were too inefficient. More people in the US are strangled with bare hands than die from gun shots.
BTW, where’s the information about Adam Lanza’s use of prescription psychiatric drugs? Isn’t that the common element in mass murder/suicides?
Just so Wagonwheel gets the point, the pistol is a Lugar P-08 Parabellum. A very fine gun, I own one. In the hands of a NAZI, a commie or any other leftist they can be trouble. But as Ropelight pointed out, so can a hoe.
Here’s one for ya: What did Pol Pot and Adam Lanza’s mother have in common? They were both leftist school teachers. Perhaps Wagonwheel should have “reported” her rather than wasting his time on koolo.
Diversions into the by-ways of Pre WWII German firearms laws and Nazi arms regulations were common during the pre-Heller days debates over the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Usually it would start when someone from the rights affirming side would make a remark about the the danger of personal disarmament and cite Nazi Germany and the Jews. Whereupon those who had been getting regular tactical briefs from the Violence Policy Center newsletter would leap on this incautious expression with both feet.
That’s when I learned that some of my fellow libertarians or conservatives were having a hard time coming to grips with the self-discipline of expression necessary when dealing with highly motivated left-wing trolls.
The political fact is that by the time you reach a point wherein one is calculating the potential effect armed civilian resistance against a military machine in terms of comparative throw weights, the debate has already probably shifted from the predicate of the inherent and distributive right of self-defense as a prime social value, to government policy and it’s social shaping effects.
One has shifted from Jefferson’s paradigm to Perry’s. From the constitutional memorialization of man’s inherent and inalienable rights, to Government’s illimitable power to shape the population subject to it and the relative wisdom of this or that particular means.
Another favorite tactic of the troll class is to pose the overall conflict in terms of valuing government or governance per se, versus an anarcho-libertarian lawlessness or at least irrational antinomianism.
Their ability to do so is sometimes unwittingly abetted by conservatives who will speak in a kind of shorthand, indicting “government” as a malefactor, when they more properly mean to refer to the overreach or malfeasance or outright subversion of certain persons who infest a constitutional government’s offices with the aim of using them in order to coerce their fellow citizens to their liking.
But that’s all just another day in the world of Internet commentary …
Those are good points and examples. You could add to that Rwanda. A couple tens of thousands of WWII surplus Lee Enfields and half a million rounds of ammunition in the hands of the victims – training or no – and the machete murderers would have found their social shaping work much more risky.
DNW, those guys weren’t “machete murderers” they were enlightened progressive communists. Besides, hacking a white, capitalist, landowner to death is just “social justice”. You gotta get with the
progromprogram.By the way … And though this isn’t the proper box to place the remark: I want to say that despite my expression of concern over Perry’s – possibly organic – mental state, it has struck me even more forcibly than it originally did that he was being deliberately duplicitous. He was engaging in a kind of actual fraud in his attempt to deflectively BS his way by a question as to whether as a “scientist” he believed there was an objective reality which constituted the subject matter of his operations. He of course had been claiming that there is not.
The startling fact is that even in his attempt to switch the question from the reality of the objective world, to the manner of the scientific method as practiced, he misleadingly truncated and punctuated an unattributed quote,[ which turns out to be taken from no recognized authority in the science community] in order to give it the opposite sense the full text actually conveyed.
Perry engaged in a quite deliberate fraud, I am sorry to say.
Pretending to authoritative expertise, and wishing to buttress the claims of his own radical subjectivity and relativism, he altered an unattributed text in order to give it a meaning exactly contrary to the clear sense of the full sentence and passage.
If this is the standard by which he wishes to prove his status as a moral peer and fellow, he has only succeeded in doing the opposite.
I now believe that for this act of fraud, Perry should be punished … if, that is, he even recovers enough from whatever problem it is he is currently experiencing to participate in the future.
Yeah, “justice”. The post-modern left always wishes to reframe the issue in the broadest possible way consistent with its rhetorical usefulness to their agenda. Too broad a reframing however, and the effect becomes negative for them as well.
The trick for them is to know where to stop and disallow further analysis along the lines they have been busily pursuing, lest it redound negatively on them too.
So according to them, realist conceptions of law and property and personal rights don’t exist and therefore are to be jettisoned in the name of the collective.
But we are supposed for some reason to stop the analysis there; you know, with the killing or reeducation of the recalcitrant reactionary individualists. However the problem for the Perry type is that their own deconstructive analysis of meaning and essential nature, leaves them without any real, or objective grounds for establishing their own claims.
As many have noticed before: they saw off the branch they are perched on; and then broken and whimpering on the ground, express indignation when the audience laughs.
So, like Perry, they engage in fraud and hope it flys.
Yeah, “justice”. The post-modern left always wishes to reframe the issue in the broadest possible way consistent with its rhetorical usefulness to their agenda. Too broad a reframing however, and the effect becomes negative for them as well.
The trick for them is to know where to stop and disallow further analysis along the lines they have been busily pursuing, lest it redound negatively on them too.
So according to them, realist conceptions of law and property and personal rights don’t exist and therefore are to be jettisoned in the name of the collective.
But we are supposed for some reason to stop the analysis there; you know, with the killing or reeducation of the recalcitrant reactionary individualists. However the problem for the Perry type is that their own deconstructive analysis of meaning and essential nature, leaves them without any real, or objective grounds for establishing their own claims.
As many have noticed before: they saw off the branch they are perched on; and then broken and whimpering on the ground, express indignation when the audience laughs.
So, like Perry, they engage in fraud and hope it flies.
Too late on the “flies” correction apparently.
Here’s an abbreviated run-down of recent mass murders in the US, taken from David Kupelian’s article at NWD (link at the bottom) Not all are gun crimes, but they do all have at least one common element. (Emphasis added)
Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, Calif., in 1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban “semiautomatic assault weapons” in California and the nation. The 25-year-old Purdy, who murdered five children and wounded 30, had been on Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine.
Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Ore., and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin.
In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Ill., killing one child and wounding six. She had been taking the antidepressant Anafranil as well as Lithium, long used to treat mania.
In Paducah, Ky., in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students in a prayer meeting taking place in the school’s lobby, killing three and leaving another paralyzed. Carneal reportedly was on Ritalin.
In 2005, 16-year-old Native American Jeff Weise, living on Minnesota’s Red Lake Indian Reservation, shot and killed nine people and wounded five others before killing himself. Weise had been taking Prozac.
In another famous case, 47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after he began taking Prozac in 1989, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Ky., killing nine. Prozac-maker Eli Lilly later settled a lawsuit brought by survivors.
Kurt Danysh, 18, shot his own father to death in 1996, a little more than two weeks after starting on Prozac. Danysh’s description of own his mental-emotional state at the time of the murder is chilling: “I didn’t realize I did it until after it was done,” Danysh said. “This might sound weird, but it felt like I had no control of what I was doing, like I was left there just holding a gun.”
John Hinckley, age 25, took four Valium two hours before shooting and almost killing President Ronald Reagan in 1981. In the assassination attempt, Hinckley also wounded press secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and policeman Thomas Delahanty.
Andrea Yates, in one of the most heartrending crimes in modern history, drowned all five of her children – aged 7 years down to 6 months – in a bathtub. Insisting inner voices commanded her to kill her children, she had become increasingly psychotic over the course of several years. At her 2006 murder re-trial (after a 2002 guilty verdict was overturned on appeal), Yates’ longtime friend Debbie Holmes testified: “She asked me if I thought Satan could read her mind and if I believed in demon possession.” And Dr. George Ringholz, after evaluating Yates for two days, recounted an experience she had after the birth of her first child: “What she described was feeling a presence … Satan … telling her to take a knife and stab her son Noah,” Ringholz said, adding that Yates’ delusion at the time of the bathtub murders was not only that she had to kill her children to save them, but that Satan had entered her and that she had to be executed in order to kill Satan. Yates had been taking the antidepressant Effexor. In November 2005, more than four years after Yates drowned her children, Effexor manufacturer Wyeth Pharmaceuticals quietly added “homicidal ideation” to the drug’s list of “rare adverse events.” The Medical Accountability Network, a private nonprofit focused on medical ethics issues, publicly criticized Wyeth, saying Effexor’s “homicidal ideation” risk wasn’t well-publicized and that Wyeth failed to send letters to doctors or issue warning labels announcing the change.And what exactly does “rare” mean in the phrase “rare adverse events”? The FDA defines it as occurring in less than one in 1,000 people. But since that same year 19.2 million prescriptions for Effexor were filled in the U.S., statistically that means thousands of Americans might experience “homicidal ideation” – murderous thoughts – as a result of taking just this one brand of antidepressant drug. Effexor is Wyeth’s best-selling drug, by the way, which in one recent year brought in over $3 billion in sales, accounting for almost a fifth of the company’s annual revenues.
One more case is instructive, that of 12-year-old Christopher Pittman, who struggled in court to explain why he murdered his grandparents, who had provided the only love and stability he’d ever known in his turbulent life. “When I was lying in my bed that night,” he testified, “I couldn’t sleep because my voice in my head kept echoing through my mind telling me to kill them.” Christopher had been angry with his grandfather, who had disciplined him earlier that day for hurting another student during a fight on the school bus. So later that night, he shot both of his grandparents in the head with a .410 shotgun as they slept and then burned down their South Carolina home, where he had lived with them.”I got up, got the gun, and I went upstairs and I pulled the trigger,” he recalled. “Through the whole thing, it was like watching your favorite TV show. You know what is going to happen, but you can’t do anything to stop it. ”Pittman’s lawyers would later argue that the boy had been a victim of “involuntary intoxication,” since his doctors had him taking the antidepressants Paxil and Zoloft just prior to the murders. Paxil’s known “adverse drug reactions” – according to the drug’s FDA-approved label – include “mania,” “insomnia,” “anxiety,” “agitation,” “confusion,” “amnesia,” “depression,” “paranoid reaction,” “psychosis,” “hostility,” “delirium,” “hallucinations,” “abnormal thinking,” “depersonalization” and “lack of emotion,” among others. The preceding examples are only a few of the best-known offenders who had been taking prescribed psychiatric drugs before committing their violent crimes – there are many others.
Whether we like to admit it or not, it is undeniable that when certain people living on the edge of sanity take psychiatric medications, those drugs can – and occasionally do – push them over the edge into violent madness. Remember, every single SSRI antidepressant sold in the United States of America today, no matter what brand or manufacturer, bears a “black box” FDA warning label – the government’s most serious drug warning – of “increased risks of suicidal thinking and behavior, known as suicidality, in young adults ages 18 to 24.” Common sense tells us that where there are suicidal thoughts – especially in a very, very angry person – homicidal thoughts may not be far behind. Indeed, the mass shooters we are describing often take their own lives when the police show up, having planned their suicide ahead of time.
So, what ‘medication’ was Lanza on?
The Sandy Hook school massacre, we are constantly reminded, was the “second-worst school shooting in U.S. history.” Let’s briefly revisit the worst, Virginia Tech, because it provides an important lesson for us. One would think, in light of the stunning correlation between psych meds and mass murders, that it would be considered critical to establish definitively whether the Virginia Tech murderer of 32 people, student Cho Seung-Hui, had been taking psychiatric drugs.
Yet, more than five years later, the answer to that question remains a mystery…
What kind of meds might Cho have been taking – or recently have stopped taking? Curiously, despite an exhaustive investigation by the Commonwealth of Virginia which disclosed that Cho had taken Paxil for a year in 1999, specifics on what meds he was taking prior to the Virginia Tech massacre have remained elusive. The final 20,000-word report manages to omit any conclusive information about the all-important issue of Cho’s medications during the period of the mass shooting.
To add to the drama, it wasn’t until two years after the state’s in-depth report was issued that, as disclosed in an Aug. 19, 2009, ABC News report, some of Cho’s long-missing mental health records were located:
The records released today were discovered to be missing during a Virginia panel’s August 2007 investigation four-and-a-half months after the massacre.
The notes were recovered last month from the home of Dr. Robert Miller, the former director of the counseling center, who says he inadvertently packed Cho’s file into boxes of personal belongings when he left the center in February 2006. Until the July 2009 discovery of the documents, Miller said he had no idea he had the records.
Miller has since been let go from the university.
Although Cho’s newly discovered mental-health files reportedly revealed nothing further about his medications, the issues raised by the initial accounts – including the “officials” cited by the New York Times and the Richmond paper’s eyewitness account of daily meds-taking – remain unaddressed to this day.
Some critics suggest these official omissions are motivated by a desire to protect the drug companies from ruinous product liability claims. Indeed, pharmaceutical manufacturers are nervous about lawsuits over the “rare adverse effects” of their mood-altering medications. To avoid costly settlements and public relations catastrophes – such as when GlaxoSmithKline was ordered to pay $6.4 million to the family of 60-year-old Donald Schnell who murdered his wife, daughter and granddaughter in a fit of rage shortly after starting on Paxil – drug companies’ legal teams have quietly and skillfully settled hundreds of cases out-of-court, shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars to plaintiffs.
Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly fought scores of legal claims against Prozac in this way, settling for cash before the complaint could go to court while stipulating that the settlement remain secret – and then claiming it had never lost a Prozac lawsuit.
All of which is, once again, to respectfully but urgently ask the question: When on earth are we going to find out if the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook school massacre, like so many other mass shooters, had been taking psychiatric drugs?
In the end, it may well turn out that knowing what kinds of guns he used isn’t nearly as important as what kind of drugs he used.
That is, assuming we ever find out.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/#Z5uQkJlfBUk23yPo.99
Speaking of Rwanda … here are some men who were ordered to give up their weapons, and obeyed.
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.
Adolf Hitler
As stated, with context, in the piece I linked too.
Honestly, ropelight, being both stupid AND too lazy to read is no way to go through life, boy.
The Hitler statement I posted Monday, 7 January 2013 at 12:01 above and which is the subject of an insult calling me both stupid AND too lazy to read is a repeat of the same statement which I posted 5 days earlier on the Keeping the Constitution thread.
I repeated it here yesterday because I noticed it at Phoney’s link and since he neglected to include it in his comment I decided repetition was appropriate.
Now, he blames me for his own shortcomings, which is typical of him. So I’ll leave it up to others to decide who’s made a fool of himself and proved yet again just who it is that’s both stupid and too lazy to read.
Since he’s the pathetic clown who previously scaled the heights of his hauteur only in order to sneer out that Jefferson wrote the Constitution; the same clown who got Washington’s letter regarding the French Canadians all wrong; the self-same clown who among a dozen other of his more vaingloriously imbecile performances claimed that the Visigoths were “NOT” Christian (they were Arians) … it’s pretty obvious that he’s the fool.
Because he’s poorly educated, he relies on Google. Because he’s lousy at reasoning, he links in order to insinuate, rather than to argue. But, because he’s so incompetent, much of what he links to actually undercuts his own ignorant insinuations.
And he’s supposedly a “librarian”.
The Hitler statement I posted Monday, 7 January 2013 at 12:01 above and which is the subject of an insult calling me both stupid AND too lazy to read is a repeat of the same statement which I posted 5 days earlier on the Keeping the Constitution thread.
If you’d bothered to read, you’d have learned the following:
i, The Nazis expanded German access to guns once they were in power.
ii, It didn’t help.
Which is why Dana’s post and this whole discussion is crap.
i, If you consider a total ban on gun ownership by Jews, dissidents, gypsys, homosexuals and any other “undesireables” expanding access to guns, then I guess the Nazi’z expanded access.
ii, Apparently it did help since they managed to round up millions of defenseless people and put them in death camps. I doubt that had they been pistol packin’ Jews they would have been so easily subjugated.
iii, They did lower the age of ownership to eighteen. And they did expand access for party members. Kinda like Obama restricting gun ownership except for Democrats.
We have a clear violation of the First Rule of Holes. The fool could simply have acknowledged his error, apologized for the gratuitous insult, and put the embarrassing outburst behind him.
But, instead of polite resolution, he doubles down on stupid.
ropelight says:
Tuesday, 8 January 2013 at 11:04
You would think that with his lengthy record here of spectacular failures and self-redounding attacks on others, he’d be so humiliated and shamed that he’d dig a real hole in the ground and disappear.
Apparently however, his emotional neediness and quest for attention overrides any other considerations.
The only thing about the troll known as Phoenician in a time of Romans that is somewhat interesting, is how truly stupid and ill educated he has revealed himself to be. Man, he’s one dumb bunny.
PiatoR posts this documented piece:
Then Hoagie replies:
I don’t see any evidence of PiatoR defending Hitler here, rather, pointing out a fact with documentation, the point being to suggest that tyrannical government has other ways to subdue a population, like overwhelming physical and psychological strength, both of which Hitler has generated, helped by the tyranny of the Versailles Treaty. We learned that lesson post WWII, as per Truman in Europe and MacArthur in Japan (until the good General tried to behave like a President, thus insubordinate).
The DNW comes in with this:
For DNW, his weapon is, as usual, the ad hominem smear, having no actual erudition to add to the mix, only articulate blusterous obfuscation!
Will it ever be possible for the Righties on here to deal with the facts, accompanied with honorable deliberations? Apparently they think that an ad hominem smear makes for a convincing narrative, although it does for the tribe I note quickly. On the surface, it might appear that DNW is above all of this/us, but he is not as he crouches down in his foxhole and let’s er rip!
And then we have Dana, our Editor, whose approach is to select out the facts he likes and ignore or deny those he does not like. Astute observers would call this propagandizing. Well, in all honesty, I do the same sometimes …!
PS: For an interesting discussion of this aspect of the Hitler of the ’30′s, click on the cite PiatoR used, on the first line of this post.
Hoagie, I’d like a cite for your claim about the denial of the Holocaust by al Jazeera. I’ve found no information about this on Google which convincingly substantiates your claim.
Have you ever read al Jazeera, Hoagie? Sure, there is a slant there, but no more that what one gets with the WSJ or the Washington Times or ….
You do realize I was addressing ropelight’s understandable bemusement at Phoenician in a time of Romans’ ridiculous pose?
You also realize that I specifically listed three of Phoenician’s more notorious pseudo-erudition pratfalls?
You must further realize that when it comes to not treating what Phoenician says – or more properly insinuates – at face value, pointing out the relevance of Phoenician’s past blunders, noting his malevolent if backfiring ignorance, and remarking on his obvious reasoning deficits, that it’s not an example of an ad hominem fallacy of relevance?
Those experiential points are all relevant in judging whether or not to grant someone already demonstrably doubtful a further benefit of the doubt.
Since while constructing his attacks on others the Phoenician has shown himself to speak nonsense again and again on legal, philosophical, and historical matters, I think that you must agree that because of these blunders and errors one naturally has good reason to treat him skeptically, at best.
And, I think you must also agree, that when Phoenician in a time of Romans is caught comically trying to leverage his demonstrable ignorance as the basis of a personal insult, he is fully deserving of expressions of contempt.
Now of course, if I had said that any historical remarks he made could be ignored because he was fat and weak and bald and mentally depressed, and lived in an irrelevant political backwater, that probably would constitute an ad hominem argument. But that isn’t the specific linkage I made.
On the other hand, to point out that he has been repeatedly and regularly and spectacularly wrong on numerous matters of historical importance which he has himself broached, goes directly to the trustworthiness of his judgment and evaluative capabilities; as regards both the supposed “facts” he presents, as well as his obvious incompetence in reasoning about them.
You have very serious problems of your own in this regard Perry, now that you have been caught out misrepresenting and manipulating quoted materials.
You would be well advised to spend your energy addressing those issues, rather than wasting it while defending the indefensible Phoenician in a time of Romans.
I don’t see any evidence of PiatoR defending Hitler here, rather, pointing out a fact with documentation, the point being to suggest that tyrannical government has other ways to subdue a population, like overwhelming physical and psychological strength, both of which Hitler has generated, helped by the tyranny of the Versailles Treaty.
Yup.
I haven’t defended Hitler, I haven’t said the Holocaust didn’t happen. That the wingnuts immediately accuse me of both speaks volumes about their own inability to think.
I have simply pointed to a source showing that the Nazi party expanded German access to guns. It wasn’t a lack of weapons which kept them in power; it was the fact that the vast majority of ordinary Germans went along with them.
Just like wingnuts swallow any crap that gets pushed out on Fox.
Perry writes,
It’s no smear to note with examples that a liar is a liar, a fool a fool, or to say that someone who has been editing texts in order to create a false impression, has done so.
But instead of rebutting the specific substance of the charge, you merely complain that the behavior has been noticed and mocked.
Except, of course, that the picture in question clearly shows Nazis pointing a gun at a Jew — and Jews (and other undesirables) were clearly forbidden to possess, manufacture or distribute firearms. In his zeal to prove us “wingnuts” wrong (b/c the pic says “only the military and police had guns”), as usual Phoe neglects to mention in his initial comment that indeed Jews were prohibited from pretty much anything to do w/guns — as the picture clearly depicts. And the point of the pic (which anyone with rational brain can figure) is that when the privileged are only permitted to own weapons, well, you can see what can happen.
Why the omission by Phoe? A lie of omission is still a lie. But we all know the “game” quite well.
Wagonwheel, if he’s not defending Hitler why would he promote the absurdity that Hitler expanded gun access? How does one equate a person and their party who by law forbade a full 15% or more of the population from owning guns as expanding the right? That would be like passing a law forbiding people of color from owning cars and claiming it’s expanding the private ownership of vehicles. What Hitler and the Nazi’s did was expand their own access to guns, no one elses.
And as the picture shows, it’s the uniformed government Nazi with the Lugar and the unarmed Jew on his knees. Or is this just another myth of Jewish extermination?
Well, Hoagie, if you were reading Al Jazeera you’d already know what to think. Do try to keep up, comrade infidel.
Justified is on FXHD at 10pm. It’s the season opener, don’t miss it. Best show on TV.
Ropelight, he knows perfectly well I don’t read Algorezeera. I also don’t read communist, socialist, Nazi, skin head or Black Panther sites. I don’t read them because I don’t believe “Sure, there is a slant there, but no more that what one gets with the WSJ or the Washington Times or ….”. There’s a big difference between a “slant” at WSJ or even MSNBC and the radical propaganda of dedicated “true believer” sites. Your inability or unwillingness to recognize the difference is scary.
You got it Ropelight. Gotta love Justified. I’ll TiVo Vegas and watch that at midnight.
All that needs to be shown to demonstrate how wingnuts are unable to face the truth:
(b/c the pic says “only the military and police had guns”),
To quote the source given:
—-
The gun culture is right about one thing, however. Hitler really did enact a new gun law. But it was in 1938, not 1935 – well after the NAZIs already had the country in its iron grip. Furthermore, the new law in many ways LOOSENED gun restrictions. For example, it greatly expanded the numbers who were exempt, it lowered the legal age of possession from 20 to 18, and it completely lifted restriction on all guns except handguns, as well as on ammunition.
—-
So some idiot wingnut makes a comment about how under the Nazis “only the military and police had guns”, i point out that this is factually incorrect – and I’m defending Hitler?
You people are complete idiots.
Wagonwheel, if he’s not defending Hitler why would he promote the absurdity that Hitler expanded gun access?
You mean apart from the fact that it’s the truth – that the 1938 law from the Nazis eased restrictions on gun ownership already established?
Face facts, people – if the Jews had had handguns they still would have been exterminated. Iraq had private guns in just about every household – they still had a dictator ruling them, and they still had an occupying army roll in and impose a puppet regime.
Hitler succeeded because ordinary Germans were happy to go along with the Nazi propaganda and scapegoat a minority when they were led to do so. And if you don’t get the point yet, you might wanna consider why you idiots were screaming about “the Ground Zero mosque” when Fox News decided to shit stir about that…