Please comment...

I appreciate your honesty. I hate rust especially what it does to vehicles. What a waste of a good vehicle. But I should probably clean and oil the few arms I have.

 

If Elenor is to believed.

“Long ago, there was a noble word, liberal, which derives from the word free. Now a strange thing happened to that word. A man named Hitler made it a term of abuse, a matter of suspicion, because those who were not with him were against him, and liberals had no use for Hitler. And then another man named McCarthy cast the same opprobrium on the word … We must cherish and honor the word free or it will cease to apply to us.” — Eleanor Roosevelt.

We know why conservatives so dislike liberals.

 

Yes! The M60 in the trunk right? He moved it back and forth with a garage door opener.
Someone skilled like yourself could set up quite a defense system.

 

It has only recently been debated whether the Nazis, Stalin, etc. were LW or RW. While the Complex held a hegemony on discourse and communication, it was simply stated that they were RW in attempts to vilify RW generally... and with little or no reasoning accompanying. I prefer a very simple nexus of "more government control over the individual versus less" that can be quantified to a degree instead of vague abstractions such as LW/RW, conservative/liberal, that can be manipulated easily towards propaganda. So if it's to be couched in the vague, abstract LW v RW, IMO more, larger, more collective government and less individual liberty = more LW, smaller, less central, less powerful government and more individual freedoms = more RW.

 

Nazi tends to refer to racists. Nazism was about German supremacy and the inferiority of everyone else.

Ever notice that the European Jews’ name ends in nazi? Ashkenazi.

 

Thanks much. Found this one...
"National Socialist.
The word "Nazi" is an abbreviation for the word "Nationalsozialist".
The full name of the political party was the "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" - the National Socialist German Worker's Party.
It's worth noting that, within Germany at the time, the word "Nazi" was a homnym for "Naczi" which was an insulting term for a "foolish clumsy person", so the term wasn't actually used by the Nazi's to describe themselves.
Since the late 1930s, however, the term "Nazi" has come to symbolise what that party became, rather than having connotations of "national" or for that matter "socialist."
Indeed, after 1932, the term "national socialist" was banned in the USSR, and Russian texts had to refer to them as "fascists", because the Kremlin didn't like the taint on the word "socialist" that had come about as a result of that party's use of the word in their name."

 

I would much rather use electricity than bullets. I designed a mousetrap that kills mice with a good jolt of electricity. It isn’t all that safe as mice sometimes catch on fire. I also kill flying bugs with electricity.

It would be funny to see a bunch of gun toting yahoos light up as electric charges pulsed across the damp ground. Or give them a fence to crawl over. Charge it up once they are halfway over. There are even certain electromagnetic frequencies that can disrupt biological functions. Feed them tones that make their heads hurt.

You can keep cattle and pigs contained with electric fences, why not conservatives.

 

Have always admired Nikola Tesla.
Have all of his ideas been understood yet by today's technology?

 

It is not a difficult issue. Right wing tends towards authoritarian dictators while Left wing tends towards pure democracy. When is the last time you ever heard a right winger call for more rights and freedom for the people? Not in my life time.

 

I think so.

 

False generally, and you don't think wanting smaller, less expensive government is wanting more "rights and freedoms of the people?" in a country where average taxpayers spend 30-50% of their working lives paying for government at all levels? Work, income and the taxes paid as a result are people's very lives, the most basic form of freedom as against government. Tell us another one. You don't think protecting 2A rights is arguing for "more rights and freedom for the people?" You don't think calling for repeal of the authoritarian mandate of ACA and other authoritarian government policies is a "call for more rights and freedom for the people?" You don't think advocating for the repeal of duplicative graft regulations is a "call for more rights and freedom for the people?" What rock do you live under that you haven't heard RW or rather anti-authoritarian LW people calling for more rights and freedom for the people?

Tell us again, who is it promoting "cancel culture" where people who dare to hold anti statist POVs are deplatformed, censored, shouted down, blocked, doxxed, even violently rioted against? Who is it violently attacking Trump supporters? Are they the ones tending towards a "pure democracy?" LOL.

 

100% true. But firearms compound that effect. A trained, organized armed force is far more effective than a trained, organized, unarmed force.

Citation needed.

Can you cite a successful revolt of people without arms overthrowing armed oppressors?

 

Ever hear of a book called Mein Kampf?

 

If freedom fighters will always be able to get arms, what stops criminals? Whats the difference? It should be noted that from the 'overlords' perspective, freedom fighters are criminals.

Sounds like a pretty good argument against the viability of any gun laws at all...

 

Somehow arming oneself to the teeth with deadly force doesn’t sound a whole lot like freedom to me. In fact it sounds a lot the attitude of one who wants to force his ideas and rule on me with force. In other words an authoritarian.

 

Of course I have. If we were debating whether Hitler hated Jews, then pointing to Mein Kampf which was written in 1924 while Hitler was in prison is a shining example of his unquestionable and dare I say manic hatred for Jews. Although in truth I think that his extermination of them is even better proof. That was not our debate however. We were discussing the reasons why the German people rallied around Hitler's war machine. In that debate, Mein Kampf has tangential relevance at most. The Germans hated the allied powers due to the Treaty of Versailles, and in combination with his success economically, is unquestionably the driving force behind the German people rallying around his war machine against the allied powers in addition to the Soviets. Fear of the Nazi's also undoubtedly played a part. The Germans didnt rally around him because of his absolute hatred, they rallied around him in spite of it. While plenty of Germans disliked Jews, that doesnt mean they wanted their brutal extermination.

The notion that the German people supported war versus all of Europe and basically the entire civilized world was specifically BECAUSE of the German people's hatred of 5% of their population is utterly absurd. At best, the hatred of Jews is tangential to the German populace support for the war machine.

 

If you want to believe in the fiction that the right to keep and bear arms is "authoritarian" as opposed to the truth that it is a protection against unjust "authoritarian" encroachment, that's your prerogative.

 

Question...

Response...

The question was..."If the Capital was destroyed by some left extremest(s), or staged to incriminate the left...would that be enough to convince armed Trump supporters that Democrats are enemies of the Constitution and the nation? Or do they already believe that?
You answered....."I think they (meaning Trump supporters) do already believe that." (that Democrats are enemies of the Constitution and the nation).
You added.....political enemies do not warrant a violent response (unless they initiate violence, of course).

So then......
"If the Capital was destroyed by some left extremest(s), or staged to incriminate the left..."
Would that warrant a violent response by Trump supporters?
Would the present administration encourage the supporters?

 

Exactly. And if you had actually read enough of this thread you would see that is all that was being said. Your claims are merely false assumptions.

 

I responded to one singular post that you made where you claimed something to the effect that he depended on hatred for Jews to garner the necessary support from the German populace for his war machine. I asked you for clarification which you could have easily provided, and you instead specifically refused to do so despite two separate requests, and one following me answering the exact same question that you turned around and posed to me. It is nonsensical and unrealistic for you to pretend like reading an entire thread is necessary to respond to a post. Very few people read a thread from cover to cover, especially when referring to a 10 page thread.

 

No, it's a pretty good argument against being an oppressive overlord, for people can always revolt. Your argument seems like you don't want any LAWS period, for any law which people even CAN violate is too much for you

 

Lol. You have a round about way of doing it...but apology excepted

 

And your contention that they conquered Europe and killed 60 million because war reparations were high and Hitler had built the Autobahns is patently absurd. The Weimar Republic had restored Germany to overall economic prosperity by the late 1920s and they were beginning to get back their cultural leadership. It was the Depression that caused the economic unrest that Hitler profited so from

No, it wasn't entirely because of their hatred of the Jews, but also their view of the rest of the world as Untermenschen or natural slaves to the Aryan "Master Race". The death camps killed 6 million Jews but also 7 million "others" who were mainly Slavs but also included 500,000 Gypsies, and uncounted homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses and anyone with any kind of physical or mental "defect" The Nazis were Fascists and this means that the nation was central to their entire philosophy but they saw RACE as determining their nation and thus race was absolutely central to their world view. Couple that with Hitler's idea that struggle was the natural condition of life itself and you have the reason why most of the Nazi soldiery fought. They wanted to take over the world, and then enslave or kill most of the people in it.

 

I never said that the German people conquered Europe and killed 60 million because of war reparations and the Autobahn. I would prefer that you NOT falsely put words into my mouth, and then proceed to call those false words patently absurd. Those words are patently absurd, but they only came from YOU. In reality, Hitler killed 60 million, while the German populace willingly and/or unwillingly simply followed orders. There were some Germans that bought into the whole master race concept, but you are exaggerating its adoption by the German populace as a whole. Just because Hitler was a nut bag and espoused nonsensical gibberish the longer he was in power, does not mean that the German people en masse supported that gibberish. The German people eventually came to support Hitler because he brought about economic prosperity. By the time that he started invading other countries, they had no idea that his plans were to invade the whole of Europe and Russia and to exterminate Jews as a whole. Before the German populace really knew the scope of what was happening, it was FAR too late for their disapproval to change the course of the war, and by the time they fully realized what was happening, opposing dear Fuhrer would be akin to a suicide wish.

While some undoubtedly bought into the master race concept, the notion that it is what drove the whole of the German populace is a function of an overactive imagination wanting to tell a good story. His brainwashing undoubtedly played well to the Hitler youth, but the children are hardly a fair representation of the German populace as a whole. Neither of us have a legitimate way to quantify the percentages of how the German populace as a whole truly felt, but your interpretation from a logical perspective is far more good story writing than reality. Just because Hitlers war machine committed unspeakable atrocities with the Master Race as its guiding philosophy, does NOT mean that therefore this was with the approval and with the same philosophy of the German populace as a whole; or even most Germans. The German people were also victims of Hitler, and certainly not a mirror image of him which is what you seem to be implying.

 

I apologize if I seemed to be putting words in your mouth. I was summarizing what I saw as the part of your argument I wished to discuss.

A recent book "Hitler's Willing Executioners" sort of contradicts you, though not entirely. It bases a large part of its argument on documentation showing that the Nazis would have been unable to incarcerate all the people it did if they had not had considerable help from the general population. Mind, that many of them didn't and even hid people at considerable risk to their own lives is an irrefutable fact as well

Actually, I think we may be in a large agreement here. The Nazi faithful were never more than a fairly small minority and they illustrate well how such minorities can totally dominate much larger groups, indeed whole nations, that do not agree with them.