Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 28206
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
emir said:
Hitler was able to carry out the systemic genocide because the Jews and the other minorities were largely unarmed. Do you seriously think the Nazis would have been able to kill 6 millions of Jews if every Jew was armed to the teeth?

I'm proud as an American that our citizens will always have power against our government, something that can't be said about European countries.
Click to expand...
I guess you applauded the physical assault and violent insurrection upon the Capitol after Trump lost the election ?
 
emir said:
1. Do you think Hitler would have been able to invade so many European countries successfully if the citizens were actually armed to the teeth?

2. My point is not a "hypothesis". There have been studies based on the whole holocaust and disarmament of the Jewish population. Before WW2, the Jewish and other minorities had their guns taken away. If you don't believe me, you can go away and research this topic. If the Jews were armed to the same extent as the Texans, the holocaust on a mass level would have been prevented.

3. Nothing I've stated is disturbing. I'm offering a new perspective in which people don't want to believe in.
Click to expand...
1. This contention shows that you know nothing about how Germany went about invading other countries. 'Blitzkrieg' was not about sending troops in first, but the opposite. Aerial bombardment coupled with tanks going in was the method of killing/demoralising the population being attacked. Troops then followed in the wake of the total disorganisation that followed. A country's military machine was the ONLY way to prevent invasion, not the general populace. To believe anything else shows you are thick...

2. In the light of my first paragraph above, it is not only a hypothesis, but 100% incorrect. The rest of your second paragraph is therefore fatally flawed as a premise.

3. Everything you have stated IS disturbing. You off NO new perspective at all. You are a right-wing gun nut who sees no problem in laying the blame anywhere other than where it should be placed. You, and all the others in American society who think like you, are a cancer on that society which, unfortunately, will never be eradicated.

By the way, don't take me on about WW2 - I've probably forgotten more than you will ever know...
 
AndyC said:
I guess you applauded the physical assault and violent insurrection upon the Capitol after Trump lost the election ?
Click to expand...
Nope not at all. I was actually ashamed of it, more than anything.

The number of people that were part of the "insurrection" were only 2,000, which makes up a very very small percentage of the total amount of people who voted for Trump and even far smaller percentage of the American population.
 
Old Blue 2 said:
1. This contention shows that you know nothing about how Germany went about invading other countries. 'Blitzkrieg' was not about sending troops in first, but the opposite. Aerial bombardment coupled with tanks going in was the method of killing/demoralising the population being attacked. Troops then followed in the wake of the total disorganisation that followed. A country's military machine was the ONLY way to prevent invasion, not the general populace. To believe anything else shows you are thick...

2. In the light of my first paragraph above, it is not only a hypothesis, but 100% incorrect. The rest of your second paragraph is therefore fatally flawed as a premise.

3. Everything you have stated IS disturbing. You off NO new perspective at all. You are a right-wing gun nut who sees no problem in laying the blame anywhere other than where it should be placed. You, and all the others in American society who think like you, are a cancer on that society which, unfortunately, will never be eradicated.

By the way, don't take me on about WW2 - I've probably forgotten more than you will ever know...
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter "how" Germany went about invading other countries. People always say how mass gun-ownership will always be overpowered by the state-ran military but that's not the point. A militia means there will always be resistance and guerrilla warfare in these invaded land, which would always trouble the Nazis. It's a well documented fact that France's strict gun laws halted and affected their resistance to the Nazis and was the prime reason why France was able to be invaded so easily.

You keep saying it's "100% incorrect" but you never give an explanation why it's incorrect. You just keep acting on your feelings without wanting to listen to a different perspective. You can't explain to me how possession of firearms wouldn't help out the helpless Jewish families in the wake of a mass genocide.

I'm not putting the blame on anywhere other than where it should be placed. What many people recognize and understand is that many deaths from these mass shootings is just a drop in the bucket compared to the freedom and security guns provide to civilians.
 
emir said:
It doesn't matter "how" Germany went about invading other countries. People always say how mass gun-ownership will always be overpowered by the state-ran military but that's not the point. A militia means there will always be resistance and guerrilla warfare in these invaded land, which would always trouble the Nazis. It's a well documented fact that France's strict gun laws halted and affected their resistance to the Nazis and was the prime reason why France was able to be invaded so easily.

You keep saying it's "100% incorrect" but you never give an explanation why it's incorrect. You just keep acting on your feelings without wanting to listen to a different perspective. You can't explain to me how possession of firearms wouldn't help out the helpless Jewish families in the wake of a mass genocide.

I'm not putting the blame on anywhere other than where it should be placed. What many people recognize and understand is that many deaths from these mass shootings is just a drop in the bucket compared to the freedom and security guns provide to civilians.
Click to expand...
Here in the UK, we dont need guns to feel free or secure.

Weird that hey.

Much safe, many secure.

usa.webp
 
emir said:
Do you think Hitler would have been able to invade so many European countries successfully if the citizens were actually armed to the teeth?

My point is not a "hypothesis". There have been studies based on the whole holocaust and disarmament of the Jewish population. Before WW2, the Jewish and other minorities had their guns taken away. If you don't believe me, you can go away and research this topic. If the Jews were armed to the same extent as the Texans, the holocaust on a mass level would have been prevented.

Nothing I've stated is disturbing. I'm offering a new perspective in which people don't want to believe in.
Click to expand...

I mean this is ahistorical.
Jewish people didn't have access to adaquate food in the run up to the Holocaust, never mind guns.
If people wanted to repeat the horrors of the Holocaust against Texan people, they would just lie about Texan's, taking away their rights and guns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top