Assault Weapons Ban 2019

[Circle_10]

I agree and I'll bet most on M4C also agree, but your position would be WAAAAY out beyond the fringes of sanity for the perspective of many people in our society. Probably more people than are on our side. Most people are neither smart nor capable of dealing with unpleasant things, no matter how obviously true they are. They will wish away any risk of bad things happening from bad people, and assume that some faceless but awesome LEO or soldier will miraculously handle any problems that require violence, due to that LEO or soldier's magic powers, and not recognize any possibility that the same individuals minus uniform and title can do some of the same things, for good.

Democracy barely works when it's limited to arms-bearing men of military age, as it was millennia ago. Even more tenuously when practiced as it was in 1789, and our current mob rule + Oprah does not work at all.

You are, of course, correct in what you are saying, but I'm just increasingly sick of playing these dumb word games with anti-gun types.
Kinda like this thing the gun community does now: "It's not an 'assault rifle' it's a 'modern sporting rifle'! An assault rifle is select-fire!"
Ok...a Colt 6920 is basically the same gun as an M4 "assault rifle" except it isn't select-fire and the barrel is 1.5" longer...the differences are minimal and the 6920 (and every other civilian AR) is more or less an assault rifle, and you know what? That's okay. For me the fight is no longer about quibbling over what minor technical specifications make an "assault rifle", it's about making it clear that assault rifles are legitimate, constitutionally protected firearms for civilians to own and use, for the purposes that they were designed to fulfill.

And as an aside, if anyone does want to blame someone for the popularization of the terms assault rifle/assault pistol/assault weapon, it wasn't the antis, we actually need look no further than our own community. If you peruse a lot of 1980s gun magazines the gun writers of the time literally used these exact terms to refer to military style semi-automatics.
It was only after the Antis glommed on to the terminology that the gun press backtracked and began playing semantics, eventually culminating in queer-ass euphemisms like "modern sporting rifle'".

I say "assault rifle" is our term, and it's time to take it back.

[SteyrAUG]

Personally, I view it as a moot issue. As the man said "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

They may have been able to put up a resistance that was an ongoing distraction for the Nazis that slowed them down enough to make it more difficult to carry out their larger plan, it may have made no difference at all. We will never know, but the above is truth.

If nothing else they could have died on their own terms rather than being herded into gas chambers. I'll take that if there is no better option to me.

[jsbhike]

I still think you are doing apples to oranges.

In 1933 the Jewish represented less that 1% of the German population, 505,000 out of 6.7 million. According to another source about 300.000 of those Jews emigrated during the first six years of Nazi rule.

So yes, they could have made it more difficult, but ultimately they would have been defeated.

Maybe. They obviously couldn't have went toe to toe with them, especially initially. If they had taken themselves out of contributing to their own demise by disappearing instead of paying taxes followed by being used as slave labor then that would have had a detrimental effect on their system. Kick in a few thousand running around killing their opponents in their downtime and that could have been a game changer. The will is never there though on any kind of scale large enough to matter.

[JoshNC]

If the Jews in Germany had beltfeds and rockets, would it have made a difference?

OOOH the buts and the ums and the 'that's different' get DELISH when I trot that one out

I’ve discussed this with fellow Jews who are dedicated progressive hoplophobes. One of them even came back with the position statement by the ADL that it’s offensive to suggest that the Jews would have fared better under the third Reich had they been armed. Others just hypothesize that there’s no way the Jews could have resisted the Reich and what’s the point of going up against tanks, planes, rockets, etc with small arms. Almost all believe “that can’t happen here”. There is no reasoning with the fully indoctrinated.

Would it have prevented the holocaust? Probably not. But I would prefer to go out fighting rather than be herded into a gas chamber.

[docsherm]

I’ve discussed this with fellow Jews who are dedicated progressive hoplophobes. One of them even came back with the position statement by the ADL that it’s offensive to suggest that the Jews would have fared better under the third Reich had they been armed. Others just hypothesize that there’s no way the Jews could have resisted the Reich and what’s the point of going up against tanks, planes, rockets, etc with small arms. Almost all believe “that can’t happen here”. There is no reasoning with the fully indoctrinated.

Would it have prevented the holocaust? Probably not. But I would prefer to go out fighting rather than be herded into a gas chamber.

And the world would have know much sooner what was going on.

[AndyLate]

I’ve discussed this with fellow Jews who are dedicated progressive hoplophobes. One of them even came back with the position statement by the ADL that it’s offensive to suggest that the Jews would have fared better under the third Reich had they been armed. Others just hypothesize that there’s no way the Jews could have resisted the Reich and what’s the point of going up against tanks, planes, rockets, etc with small arms. Almost all believe “that can’t happen here”. There is no reasoning with the fully indoctrinated.

Would it have prevented the holocaust? Probably not. But I would prefer to go out fighting rather than be herded into a gas chamber.

The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto went up against tanks, planes, etc with small arms. They didn't win, but they died on their feet.

[BoringGuy45]

I’ve discussed this with fellow Jews who are dedicated progressive hoplophobes. One of them even came back with the position statement by the ADL that it’s offensive to suggest that the Jews would have fared better under the third Reich had they been armed. Others just hypothesize that there’s no way the Jews could have resisted the Reich and what’s the point of going up against tanks, planes, rockets, etc with small arms. Almost all believe “that can’t happen here”. There is no reasoning with the fully indoctrinated.

I hate the "resistance is futile" argument. Yeah, an irregular resistance group is not likely to last long in a conventional battle against a professional army with armor and air support. Of course, I said "not likely," because the French thought that about the Viet Minh, who then kicked the French Army's ass in a conventional battle at Dien Bien Phu. But at any rate, I don't see the point of not resisting evil, even in the face of near certain defeat. If someone tells me that there's no point in fighting back, I'd say fine, go quietly to your death when they come for you. I want to at least make it hard for them.

Would it have prevented the holocaust? Probably not. But I would prefer to go out fighting rather than be herded into a gas chamber.

Prevented? Probably not. Slowed down, ended prematurely, or lowered the overall death toll? Likely. Adding onto this, an armed, aggressive Jewish resistance within Nazi controlled territory, especially in Germany and Poland, would likely have caught the attention of the Allies, probably leading to OSS and SOE special ops teams to link up with them to conduct an unconventional warfare campaign. Just imagine Jewish guerillas and Jedburg teams intercepting trains on the way to the camps over and over. Imagine camps getting raided and liberated. Imagine the SS ending up in long, drawn out firefights with resistance fighters and suffering heavy losses every time they went out to round up Jews for extermination. It would likely have sapped a lot of the enthusiasm the average young SS soldier actually had for committing genocide. It would have created a new front the Nazis would have had to fight on, and could have ended the whole war earlier. Just my theory.

[Tx_Aggie]

I hate the "resistance is futile" argument. Yeah, an irregular resistance group is not likely to last long in a conventional battle against a professional army with armor and air support. Of course, I said "not likely," because the French thought that about the Viet Minh, who then kicked the French Army's ass in a conventional battle at Dien Bien Phu. But at any rate, I don't see the point of not resisting evil, even in the face of near certain defeat. If someone tells me that there's no point in fighting back, I'd say fine, go quietly to your death when they come for you. I want to at least make it hard for them.

Amen

Prevented? Probably not. Slowed down, ended prematurely, or lowered the overall death toll? Likely. Adding onto this, an armed, aggressive Jewish resistance within Nazi controlled territory, especially in Germany and Poland, would likely have caught the attention of the Allies, probably leading to OSS and SOE special ops teams to link up with them to conduct an unconventional warfare campaign. Just imagine Jewish guerillas and Jedburg teams intercepting trains on the way to the camps over and over. Imagine camps getting raided and liberated. Imagine the SS ending up in long, drawn out firefights with resistance fighters and suffering heavy losses every time they went out to round up Jews for extermination. It would likely have sapped a lot of the enthusiasm the average young SS soldier actually had for committing genocide. It would have created a new front the Nazis would have had to fight on, and could have ended the whole war earlier. Just my theory.

It would have been something to see.

It also sounds like the outline for one hell of an alternate history novel (video game/film/you name it).

[Averageman]

I'm not real familiar with the source, but...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rotestors.html
French riot police have deployed semi-automatic weapons with live ammunition against Yellow Vest protestors for the first time.
Officers were filmed brandishing Heckler & Koch G36 weapons by the Arc de Triomphe in Paris on Saturday afternoon.
The presence of semi-automatic rifles at a demonstration by unarmed French citizens shows how President Emmanuel Macron’s law and order crisis spirals.
It comes after former conservative minister Luc Ferry called for live fire to be used against the ‘thugs’ from the Yellow Vest movement who he says 'beat up police'.
Riot police were on crowd control duty today facing off a mob of Gilet Jaunes or Yellow Vests - named after the bright high-visibility clothing.
Live ammunition 30 cartridge magazines could be seen as officers marched the streets, although none were used as 5000 police were deployed on the streets of the French capital.

I'm not sure if you've been following this, but these folks in the Yellow Vests are protesting their taxes being raised and the French version of their Social Security being taken from them. They feel that they no longer have representation within their .gov and that they are being taxed in to poverty.
Sound Familiar?
So when they tell you that these guns are for "Sporting Purposes Only" consider yourself in the same predicament as these French people.

[WickedWillis]

If the Jews in Germany had beltfeds and rockets, would it have made a difference?

OOOH the buts and the ums and the 'that's different' get DELISH when I trot that one out

They would have died in the fight instead of in camps. I see why that's a tough question though.