Author Topic: Night of the Broken Glass (Read 2748 times)

Xargos · « **on:** September 02, 2007, 12:51:36 PM »

I knew about the event, but never that it had a name. To me this is a very good reason for not depending on the State to protect you from harm.

Kristallnacht

Edited for improper sentence structure.

68Hawk · « **Reply #1 on:** September 02, 2007, 12:53:36 PM »

Absolutely.

Roscoroo · « **Reply #2 on:** September 02, 2007, 02:41:04 PM »

Totally

Hortlund · « **Reply #3 on:** September 02, 2007, 02:44:33 PM »

I dont think Nazi Germany is a good example of a state trying to protect you citizens from harm though. Especially not since the citizens under attack were jews.

Fulmar · « **Reply #4 on:** September 02, 2007, 02:50:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
I dont think Nazi Germany is a good example of a state trying to protect you citizens from harm though.

Well maybe not all citizens of Germany at the time. But certainly 'Aryans.'

JB88 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 02, 2007, 03:03:48 PM »

had an interesting conversation with a guy from poland last night. i was trying to express to him why americans so cherish the right to bear arms...i was attempting to explain to him that an armed populace is the only possible temper to an armed government doing harm to an unarmed citizenry or as protection against a foriegn invader...appearantly losing 35% of the population of poland in ww2 (his statistic) wasnt enough to persuade him that self defense isnt such a bad idea.

Hortlund · « **Reply #6 on:** September 02, 2007, 03:06:46 PM »

Two questions.

1) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against an invader? It might have worked in 1776, but in 2007, most invaders come armed with tanks and aircraft.

2) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against a government trying to disarm them? If the government really really wanted they could and would go Waco on all your tulips and take your guns.

Xargos · « **Reply #7 on:** September 02, 2007, 03:10:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Two questions.

1) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against an invader? It might have worked in 1776, but in 2007, most invaders come armed with tanks and aircraft.

2) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against a government trying to disarm them? If the government really really wanted they could and would go Waco on all your tulips and take your guns.

If the Government had to face hundreds or even thousands of Waco's at the same time, things would have turned out very different.

Our Founding Fathers where wise enough to know that all forms of government become corrupt over time. That is the reason they gave us the second amendment, so that we could overthrow that corrupt government when the time came. That is the reason liberals want to take our guns away, so that they could force their will upon the masses even more.

john9001 · « **Reply #8 on:** September 02, 2007, 03:30:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund

1) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against an invader? It might have worked in 1776, but in 2007, most invaders come armed with tanks and aircraft.

let me get this straight, people on here say the US military can't defeat the terrorists in Iraq, but a foreign invader could defeat a "armed citizenry' in America?

Hortlund · « **Reply #9 on:** September 02, 2007, 03:43:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
let me get this straight, people on here say the US military can't defeat the terrorists in Iraq, but a foreign invader could defeat a "armed citizenry' in America?

The only reason people say that is because they are idiots.

If the US wanted to, they could easily put an end to all violence in Iraq by enforcing what we could call "soviet methods" of crowd control and anti-insurgency tactics. In an invasion of the USA-scenario, I dont think the US citizenry should count on an invader being that civilized.

AWMac · « **Reply #10 on:** September 02, 2007, 03:48:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Two questions.

1) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against an invader? It might have worked in 1776, but in 2007, most invaders come armed with tanks and aircraft.

2) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against a government trying to disarm them? If the government really really wanted they could and would go Waco on all your tulips and take your guns.

Hortlund... here, c'mon... here grab my gun. Bet you can't.

BTW you Swedish lil Biyatch what do you know about Waco? Or maybe yer a lil Liberal American hiding behind a different flag?

Sweden LOL the Liberal hemoroid of the World.

With Love,

Mac

Hortlund · « **Reply #11 on:** September 02, 2007, 03:53:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AWMac
Hortlund... here, c'mon... here grab my gun. Bet you can't.
Mac

What are you gay?

JB88 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 02, 2007, 03:53:55 PM »

i don't think that you have to be a right winger to respect the second amendment mac. im not...and i do.

but that's just mizzizzle yo.

Fulmar · « **Reply #13 on:** September 02, 2007, 03:57:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
If the US wanted to, they could easily put an end to all violence in Iraq by enforcing what we could call "soviet methods" of crowd control and anti-insurgency tactics. In an invasion of the USA-scenario, I dont think the US citizenry should count on an invader being that civilized.

I agree. We'd need a few more troops to pull it off. If we actually did it like this and not be all PC about it we'd see quite a backlash from the international community. If you think the anti-American movement is big now...

LEADPIG · « **Reply #14 on:** September 02, 2007, 04:17:46 PM »

Walter Chronkite told a story i totally agree with once. He said he was with the allies as they were liberating a certain concentration camp. A German citizen ran up to him crying. He told Walter Chronkite hysterically, "I didn't know what was going on in there." Chronkite told the person doing the interview that night, that he thought the person crying was almost as responsible for the event as the ones that commited it. One more reason why governments can never be totally trusted and they should be kept an eye on. Why, because they are run by the most fallible objects in the universe, us, people.