Guns vs. Tyranny

[hikarugenji.livejournal.com]

There's a lot of talk lately about guns being necessary as a defense against tyranny, complete with comparisons to Stalin and Hitler and such. The "Right to revolution" is also mentioned sometimes. But in a democracy, how is this actually supposed to work?

We see situations (such as the Middle East) where fledgling democracies aren't working because the response to your candidate losing an election is violence. Clearly some people on the right-wing fringe in the US are convinced that Obama is destroying the nation, etc. etc. So what does the "right to revolution" mean for them?

There's also mention of resisting authority. Someone on my FB wall just posted something that showed the WW2 internment of Japanese-Americans as an example of why the populace needs guns, but didn't really elaborate on that. Does any citizen who disagrees with a law have the right to use guns against authority figures trying to enforce the law?

Even the founders, who had lived through and participated (and led) a revolution, were still fairly decisive in putting down rebellions and civil unrest early in the US' existence. When the Whiskey Rebellion happened, the founders didn't think "Well hey, they've got a right to revolution."

(Not to mention that we clearly don't recognize a right for the Taliban to revolt in Afghanistan.)

So what does it all mean? An actual codified, lawful right to revolution makes no sense in a democracy, but I'm unclear about what else it can mean.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

My argument is very straightforward, and surely you should be able to see it. I'm not going to play that game where you twist my words all out of meaning here. I'm sure you can see the point of listing every single time people tried and failed to resist Hitler in terms of the effectiveness of rebellion against tyranny and are intelligent enough to understand the analogy here.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

So, what you are arguing has little to do with what Jeff was saying? Straightforward indeed.

Anyways I digress, so you seem to be arguing that the Jewish population was better off not resisting at all, and that they were better off all filing into line for either the gas chamber or concentration camps?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but if you're intent on reading into my argument something that's not there and is the exact opposite of what I'm talking about, you're in a poor position to object about a lack of clarity. I expect this kind of disingenuous manipulation of words from so-called super-experts.

All I'm noting is that Jews *did* revolt against Hitler and the attempts failed, so the argument 'if they had guns they were guaranteed to overthrow him' is a disgrace to the memory of the people butchered in doomed heroic uprisings. It's a point based on several levels of outrage.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but if you're intent on reading into my argument something that's not there and is the exact opposite of what I'm talking about, you're in a poor position to object about a lack of clarity.

I'm not accusing you of making any argument. I'm asking if you are making an argument, because you are being extremely vague. Do you know what this ==> "?." It means I am asking a question. Not stating a fact.

All I'm noting is that Jews *did* revolt against Hitler and the attempts failed, so the argument 'if they had guns they were guaranteed to overthrow him' is a disgrace to the memory of the people butchered in doomed heroic uprisings. It's a point based on several levels of outrage.

Look at that, you clarified your position. Your complete failure is your reading of "unless they were Jews" into 'if they had guns they were guaranteed to overthrow him.' I find it hilarious that you basically accused me of twisting your words when attempting to figure out what it was you were arguing, when your entire argument was, well, based on twisting peoples words so you could argue what you wanted to argue.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) I'm not being vague at all. Perhaps my meaning here is eluding you but that's not the same thing as being vague.

2) Your complete failure was reading a point about Hitler loosening the Weimar Republic's gun laws as having anything to do with Jews and then bringing up the revolts against Hitler. My first point was unrelated to the revolts, and to put it bluntly I get really annoyed with your repeated attempts to make statements and pretend that they are made into a vacuum.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

2) Your complete failure was reading a point about Hitler loosening the Weimar Republic's gun laws as having anything to do with Jews and then bringing up the revolts against Hitler.

What kind of gibberish is this? I didn't bring up Jews at all and you brought up revolts against Hitler.

and to put it bluntly I get really annoyed with your repeated attempts to make statements and pretend that they are made into a vacuum.

More gibberish. I'm pretending to make statements into a vacuum? I'm guessing you think you are being clear here also. How many ways can you be confusing? Let me count the ways.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So I did, but in terms of Jeff's comment about Hitler arming Jews. If the point made is still too difficult for you to understand, why are you wasting my time? I'm not here to explain the basics of grammar, syntax, or debunking commonly noted historical myths for your benefit. Especially when I've stated my argument once and it seemed to still be beyond you.

Let me put it another way. Jeff said 'unless you were a Jew' in response to a statement that Hitler loosened gun control laws. I noted that Jewish armed resistance was actually quite common. In response you came up out of nowhere with points about my stating somewhere, somehow that Jews should not have resisted when I noted that their resistance failed. And then you're claiming that I'm the one talking gibberish. Go waste someone else's time with this idiocy, I'm not inclined to play your semantical games and inability to remember what you posted five fucking minutes ago.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Jeff said 'unless you were a Jew' in response to a statement that Hitler loosened gun control laws. I noted that Jewish armed resistance was actually quite common.

Again, this sounds like you are saying that Hitler didn't attempt to disarm the Jewish population. Do you not see this?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'm sure it sounds like that to someone who has a superficial grasp of what statements mean. As well as both a superficial grasp of context and of obvious problems that Germany might have encountered if it had sent Jews in ghettoes and completely disarmed them when it was at first pretending to everyone, including itself, that it wasn't intending ultimately to kill them all somehow. As I said if your understanding of WWII is at a third grade level, maybe.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I have this vague feeling that this is not going to end very well.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It never ends well when he decides to flip-flop between nonsensical interpretations of what other people say while accusing them of speaking gibberish. When I keep indicating to him that I'd like the conversation to end he keeps responding, so I figure I'll let him have the last word and think he 'won' or proved the 'gibberish' I was speaking as opposed to merely refusing to keep banging my head on a brick wall until I go blind.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Nothing that has kept sliding down the passive-aggressive slope for too long, has ever ended well, I'm just sayin'.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And you're right, which is why I'm ending this particular subthread before it goes too far down that path. ;)

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

As well as both a superficial grasp of context and of obvious problems that Germany might have encountered if it had sent Jews in ghettoes and completely disarmed them when it was at first pretending to everyone, including itself, that it wasn't intending ultimately to kill them all somehow

So you did disagree with Jeff assertion that Hitler attempted to disarmed the Jewish population. And no, you are very much incorrect. The Jewish population was disarmed before being sent to ghettos.

As I said if your understanding of WWII is at a third grade level, maybe.
Rule number one, don't immediately follow an incorrect statement about WW2 with an accusation of someone else not knowing WW2 beyond a 3rd grade level.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I provided citations for my views and neither you nor he have bothered to provide the least hint of citations for yours, especially since the Nazis moved Jews into the Ghettoes without intent at the time to proceed to the death camps. I provided multiple examples, in fact, that showed my views are backed by evidence. So far all you rely upon is accusing me of speaking gibberish and being incorrect. So again, if you're going to counter multiple sources with simply accusing me of speaking gibberish, I think saying your view is superficial is quite warranted, as otherwise you could, for instance, show where either the Nazi Party in the General-Government and the Lodz, Warsaw, and other ghettoes in Poland practiced this policy and/or gave orders to carry it out. If those orders exist they would be easily findable via say, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum archives, same as the links to Jewish resistance were.

Again, don't talk the talk unless you can walk the walk. And so far you ain't done either. And until either you or Jeff (and *that* will be a cold day in Hell) provide evidence to back the usual negationist historical assertions in question, I have no interest in continuing this thread. You're welcome to the last word and feeling vindicated about a complete failure to back up what you're saying.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I provided multiple examples, in fact, that showed my views are backed by evidence.

Those links you provided do not say what you think they say. Did you not read those links you copy and pasted? First off, all the camp uprising were obviously due to weapons stolen from guards, or where carried out with tools. They also specifically state that the the Warsaw uprising was made possible mostly because of weapons provided by the Polish Home Army. There is no mention of the source of weapons from the other ghetto uprisings, however, I'm fairly certain they were not still in possession of their own weapons that they were allowed to keep as an act of good faith.

Additionally there were laws specifically targeting Jews for disarmament.

Nazi Weapons Law of November 11, 1938 (http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/NaziLawEnglish.htm)

One of the first legal measures issued was an order by Heinrich Himmler, commander of all German police, forbidding Jews to possess any weapons whatever and imposing a penalty of twenty years confinement in a concentration camp upon every Jew found in possession of a weapon hereafter (http://books.google.com/books?id=4LnoQgC4GKQC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=Nazis+Smash,+Loot+and+Burn+Jewish+Shops+and+Temples+Until+Goebbels+Calls+Halt&source=bl&ots=EqMnOkdOt6&sig=LcqR4lMkV2EYC6VjvTqeLdNgZ_g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GMH9UOWRNoj8qwHW_oDoBQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Nazis%20Smash%2C%20Loot%20and%20Burn%20Jewish%20Shops%20and%20Temples%20Until%20Goebbels%20Calls%20Halt&f=false)

Not to mention that, at least in Berlin, there were several raids by Berlin police in the weeks before Nov. 9th 1938 to disarm Jewish residents. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2128749/posts) Which was a move widely believed to be in preparation for the Kristallnacht.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Thank you for providing actual sources. I concede the argument, since you finally provided a basis for an actual argument instead of simply accusing someone else of speaking gibberish. You were right and I was wrong. Not the first time I was wrong on the Internet and it would be a bold man who'd predict it'd be my last.