Re: Obama's school speech came and went...

In article <jl87c5tr57elakp87d6g5e1g474g60r4jl@xxxxxxx>,
Ray <chigaray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


The *concept* isn't the issue. The issue is whether this concept is a
possible rationale for the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany
*specifically.* It's not.

Well, there we must disgaree. I think it *IS* (or rather, was) a
possible reason for what was done. Perhaps not just for their
property, both real and personal, but to free up resources for the
Master Race.

I would call it not so much a motive as a factor. Maybe an afterthought.
As in, Himmler and Heydrich and Goering sitting around thinking of ways
to eliminate Jews, and one of them saying, "You know, we can ameliorate
the costs of this by seizing their property. That way, it pays for
itself." And the rest of them thinking it's a great idea. But the main
motive remained elimination of the Jews, not redistribution of wealth.



All those Soviets, Poles and other Slavs (numbering in the millions,
mostly non-Jews) were also exterminated for the sake of lebensraum,
which when boiled down to its essence was to free up resources for
Germans.

Maybe not money in its literal definition, but the fewer non-Aryans
there were to feed and clothe and shelter, the farther the money could
go.

Conquest is not the same as wealth redistribution. You're really
reaching to make an equivalency here.

And rounding up the military along with huge chunks of the civilan
populations of the "conquered" areas and putting them in death camps,
right alongside the Jews, is not an equivalency?


I'm actually not sure what you're saying here. Who's rounding up the
military? Are you talking about one country rounding up the other's, or
a country acting on its own people?

If I'm reading what I think you're saying right, then no, it's still not
an equivalency, if what you're responding to is what I'm saying.

I'm really confused now. :)

Okay: what I'm saying is that the government taxing the wealthy in an
effort to spread benefits out to all members of society is not the same
as forcibly conquering a country in order to pillage its wealth, though
I can see why you might think that way.





Okay: name the place where they've sent LEA of any level house-to-house
to collect guns. Please.

Well, Nazi Germany for one. "This year will go down in history. For
the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. The
streets will be safer, the police more efficient and the world will
follow our lead into the future." ~ Adolf Hitler.

The Soviet Union.

China.

Uganda.

Guatemala.

Cambodia.

Iran.

Perhaps not door to door confiscation, but outlawing gun ownership has
a rich history. I guess if the US institutes similar firearm
legislation, we can anticipate another mea culpa phone call from you.

"History does not repat itself, but it does rhyme" ~ Mark Twain.


I plainly meant *in this country.* We are not the USSR, or China, or
Uganda. Our history and culture are different and exceptional, and
indelibly tied in with gun ownership and use.

Nice dodge, but since we were talking about the possibility of gun
bans in this country there obviously has not been any such event here.
Yet.
Therefore, your request for me to name a place where such things have
occured MUST include places outside the US.

It wasn't a dodge. I assumed that all this time, we were speaking
specifically of the US. I didn't know we were making global comparisons.
In which case, I still feel the point should be made that America is
unique: I don't think it's even possible to consider any such federal
ban on all weapons. The outcry would be such that an armed rebellion
would be likely. I don't even think it's possible to gradually sneak
this up on people. Not only is the gun industry lobby too strong, the
popular voice is too strong. I just can't see too many locations in the
country, even in the "blue" areas, telling people they can't keep a gun
to protect their homes, or a rifle for deer hunting, or a shotgun for
skeet shooting, and getting away with it. Not when hunting is still a
vital means of feeding your family in, what, three-quarters of American
states? Maybe more?

Actually, is there any state other than Hawaii that doesn't have a
healthy hunting population?

(As an aside: MSNBC is doing a feature right now on the court case
before the Supremes involving Chicago's handgun ban, a case expected to
be decided by next summer. Two reporters are right now saying that the
lefties are on the side of gun owners in this case because the argument
[which they don't really explain] used on behalf of the gun laws could
be used to contradict other basic rights such as speech. It seems to
have something to do with jurisdictional issues. Of course, they're
talking about the practicality of gun laws over the legal issues
involved.)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OWS Protester Proclaims ?The Jews Control Wall St.? In Zuccotti Park Rant
    ... they don't support free speech at all. ... She's quoted as saying "The Zionist ... Jews who are running these big banks and the Federal Reserve ... ... country is abhorrent but permitted speech - suggesting we should be run ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Warning (for Gisele) Contains anti-liberal material
    ... No one is saying things didn't happen that shouldn't have happened. ... How sad your life must be, always wanting to demean others so you can feel ... the Jews themselves who had brought this treatment upon them. ... bring them in from another country to have so many incarcerated. ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Re: Does any other country have a RKBA?
    ... murder rates is the US ... compared from one country to another. ... with suicide in Japan is because of "gun control". ... Is ANYONE saying "the problem with suicide in Japan is because of gun ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Moral equivalence
    ... community of Jews decide to move to some small country, some island in the Caribbean say, and over time they become a majority there. ... Are you saying that since that country isn't Israel, the Jews there would not support having a halachic government? ... The Muslims are saying Muslim countries ought to be run under Sharia, and the O Jews are saying that Jewish countries ought to be run under Halacha. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Moral equivalence
    ... community of Jews decide to move to some small country, ... Are you saying that since that country isn't Israel, ... that there are more Muslim countries than Jewish countries? ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)