TexasCHLforum.com

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

speedsix wrote:...reading the OP...not one thought of OUR nation's military crossed my mind...it was posted at face value as a horrible example of what happened when citizens who had surrendered their arms were attacked by the military controlled by a madman...70 years ago...and stands as a reminder that we must protect our rights to defend against ALL ENEMIES...foreign and domestic...

It SHOULD cross your mind.

We are not immune to the same issues faced by other nations in the past.

Look, I did 20 years. What I saw go down after the GWOT kicked off is why I ONLY did 20. Well, that and the election of the current POTUS. However, it's not just the Dems. The Repubs are JUST as bad.

The Soviets FORCED many "professional" Tsarist troops to serve their purpose during the communist take over by a variety of means, and others willingly joined. After they consolidated enough power, many of them were purged.

The Wehrmacht leadership was composed primarily of "professionals" prior to the NAZI's taking power, however, not all of them were members of the party. The party used the Wehrmacht to do the heavy lifting, and what they wouldn't do, the party would.

Don't think this can't happen here. We are not so special.

MOST U.S. Joe's wouldn't commit atrocities against U.S. citizens. But some would. They wouldn't have to though, as the smart tyrant would simply order them to do something "lawful", and leave the rest up to "specialists" loyal to the party. It wasn't the front line German troop doing most of the crazy stuff the NAZI's did, they had enough trouble with the allies. Party loyalists were the instruments, and they had the authority to use the "professionals" as they saw fit.

Look at our youth today. Look at our "adults". We've got kids willing to camp out in front of a bank for months complaining about "income equality", but unwilling to put the same effort into finding a paying job. We've got adults that think the government should pay for their cell phones and gender reassignment surgery, and we have government leaders willing to support them.

We are NOT the same nation we once were.

We are not immune from making the same mistakes other nations have made in the past.

...I didn't say I'm not fully aware of what you're saying...I said the original post did not bring it to mind...it was specific to the fact that the Jews were powerless before the evil Germans because they had no means of defending themselves...the post had nothing to do, nor did it make a disparaging reference to, OUR troops today...I don't think many here are naive or asleep as to what politicians can try to do...I won't go into the subject any further here...

speedsix wrote: ...I didn't say I'm not fully aware of what you're saying...I said the original post did not bring it to mind...it was specific to the fact that the Jews were powerless before the evil Germans because they had no means of defending themselves...the post had nothing to do, nor did it make a disparaging reference to, OUR troops today...I don't think many here are naive or asleep as to what politicians can try to do...I won't go into the subject any further here...

Fair enough.

Oldgringo wrote:Custer (not Culture ) got his just due. Unfortunately, he took the 7th Cavalry with him. BTW, we plan on visiting the Little Big Horn on our way north in April.

The Washita, Sand Creek, Wounded Knee massacres are just a few examples of the whites' genocidal actions against the native American Indians. Earlier than that, the Pilgrims gave them infected blankets...and the list goes on.

As for people willingly disarming themselves and soldiers following orders, is a pre-dawn raid on a sleeping village of women and children and murdering them as they try to escape much different than what the Germans and Russians did to the Jews in WW II? I think not and my thoughts on the matter remain unchanged. So there.

OldGringo, I assure you that we are 100% in agreement. I am not at all disputing your points. Not one bit. (BTW, thanks be to auto-spellchecking that I didn't notice my iPad had substituted "Culture" for Custer. ) I've been to Wounded Knee and Sand Creek myself, and I no doubt experienced the same emotions you did.

I was merely pointing out that Heartland Patriot's point about armed populaces versus unarmed populaces has great validity. I offered what Sitting Bull did to "Culture" at Little Big Horn as an example........the Sioux had a LOT going for them there:

1. They had superior knowledge of the battlefield topography.
2. They had superior military intelligence....they were not caught by surprise.
3. They were able to use that superior intelligence to force the 7th Cav. into a fight at a time and place that was most advantageous to the Sioux.
4. They had superior numbers—a fact that might not have mattered if they had been armed with bows and arrows and spears only against troops armed with rifles and pistols..........AND
5. They had superior weapons—being armed with "yellowboy" repeating lever rifles compared to the single shot rifles carried by the 7th's troopers.

The Sioux encamped at the Little Big Horn were a perfect example of a people prepared to defend themselves from a hostile government. And I cannot think of that particular battle without also thinking of Geronimo (at least I think it was him), who waged decades of successful guerilla warfare........because he and his people were armed and committed to their cause.

So I don't dispute what you say about genocide, and I agree that it is evil in all its forms—whether it is happening against Native Americans, Armenians, Jews, or Cambodians. But, what is equally true is that wherever common people are permitted to keep and bear arms by right, there is far less likely a chance for that to happen. The people being murdered in the picture at the top of this thread were the victims not only of Nazi brutality, but also of a general eurpoean cultural bias in which they believed that "we are civilized, and those kinds of things can't happen here........and we don't need guns because our government will protect us." I am sure that when they were ordered by their government to turn in all of their guns, they believed that doing so would add to the social order and that it would reduce crime. Need we say more? We cannot guarantee that genocide will never happen again on this continent....not because individual Americans are necessarily evil people, but because our government is increasingly distant from its people, and increasingly less accountable to them. We can only do one of two things—regardless of our particular skin color or cultural background—and that is to try and restrain it at the ballot box, or push it back at the bullet box. We hope for the former, and pray against the necessity of the latter. But what separates us from the europeans in that picture, and from most of europe today, by the way, is that we are not yet disarmed.

If you want a 20th century example of what an armed people can do when invaded, look no further than Finland's reaction to the Russian invasion during WW2. Aggressor casualties were so high that they were unacceptable even by Russian standards, and they eventual withdrew. The Fins were an armed people, with a long tradition of owning firearms and of hunting; and it was not uncommon for a household to have a firearm in its possession. This was far less the case in much of the rest of europe. So when laws were passed down to the people ordering them to turn in their guns, most people were just not that inconvenienced by it because they didn't own any to begin with.

In all likelyhood, the poor folks being murdered in that picture were probably never armed, because it just wasn't in the european cultural traditions to be armed at the level of the individual and his/her home. However, if you compare their lot to that of the Fins, it could be legitimately argued that Germany's depredations might not have gone so smoothly for them. It would not have stopped germans from being genocidal, but it would have made it MUCH harder for them to enact such policies. Predatory behavior can only successfully prevail if the targets of predation lack the means to defend themselves. Sharks kill far fewer dolphins than they do penguins and seals.

bronco78 wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote: I'm not quite sure if you were directing that at me, or elsewhere. As a recent military "retiree", I certainly do NOT believe that our military, as it stands today or for the foreseeable future, would carry out what would most certainly be UNLAWFUL ORDERS. I was merely pointing out that gun control has, in the past, led to terrible consequences for people in multiple places and times...and I would hate for that to happen here, someday. I do believe that there are those few individuals within this nation who would have very little heartburn over those sorts of actions IF they were able to get away with them. NONE of us can know what the future holds, but those of us who consider ourselves to be on the side of freedom and to be patriots, we can only stay vigilant and guard against bad consequences the best we can. I feel that opposing gun control is guarding against those POTENTIAL consequences.

Would have been nice had you posted all that along with your picture and single line of text "Troops obeying orders... Citizens obeying gun laws"

I dont disagree with your postion.. NOW that you have made one clear.

*EDITED* Posted this before I saw that speedsix had me covered.

Just for clarification: I am NOT the OP. I did NOT put that picture up. I simply responded to it with my thoughts on the subject.

...and I was just looking for a peaceful weekend....

TAM wrote:
....So I don't dispute what you say about genocide, and I agree that it is evil in all its forms—whether it is happening against Native Americans, Armenians, Jews, or Cambodians. But, what is equally true is that wherever common people are permitted to keep and bear arms by right, there is far less likely a chance for that to happen....

And I agree with you. Our founding fathers exhibited great courage and foresight when they penned the 2nd Amendment to our constitution; however, we must also maintain the will and the courage to defend our 2A RKBA and our way of life.

speedsix wrote: the Jews were powerless before the evil Germans because they had no means of defending themselves...

not all Germans were Nazis, some Jews were German, and believe it or not some Nazis were not German.

bronco78 wrote:So you post that, with no context to suggest what direction or position your taking.. .Pardon me for feeling it is a direct insult to this nations Military,,, And a great way to start a US vs Them mentality. By the way, I'm the them.....

I'm the OP, and I had no intention of making that comparison. Just saw the pic and thought it was a chilling reminder of what the logical conclusion is to disarming the citizens of any country. Absolutely did not mean to insult our troops.

I may be naive, as someone else has stated, but I choose to believe that our military would not fall to such a level of depravity. Many of my friends have served and I couldn't imagine one of them following such orders. The topic has actually come up in conversation before in conjunction with some conspiracy theories like the purported FEMA death camps and without exception they would not comply.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

The Annoyed Man wrote:If you want a 20th century example of what an armed people can do when invaded, look no further than Finland's reaction to the Russian invasion during WW2.

An even more recent 20th century example is Afghanistan. Look at the reception Russia got there.

tbrown wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:If you want a 20th century example of what an armed people can do when invaded, look no further than Finland's reaction to the Russian invasion during WW2.

An even more recent 20th century example is Afghanistan. Look at the reception Russia got there.

Bazinga.

tbrown wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:If you want a 20th century example of what an armed people can do when invaded, look no further than Finland's reaction to the Russian invasion during WW2.

An even more recent 20th century example is Afghanistan. Look at the reception Russia got there.

I seem to think the Afghan reception of the American invaders was/is less than warm.

First this issue seems to have caused a bit of a rub tween the posters, it is a subject worth talking about but not being angry about. The sad truth is that about 30% of todays military believes that the Fed has the authority to disarm and control the populace, there was a study done a few years back, can't remember who did it but I think John Lott used it or at least parts of it in an article. The young men and women are NOT taught about the posse comitatus act or even the parts to any treaties we are part of that concern civilians (geneva convention, articles of war) anymore and many of them do believe that the military command structure under the orders of POTUS are infact allowed to disarm,hold and even act against the populace of the united states. This isn't an us VS. Them from my part as I would be them in that I am still part of the Military and I teach all of my soldiers that they are NOT allowed to remove weapons from those that lawfully have them nor to attempt to act against us citizens (or any civilian) except within the narrow confines that are in the law. I am not going to enumerate the conditions as it would take too long, but they are very narrow and mostly pertain to the conduct of war

The Annoyed Man wrote:

...If you want a 20th century example of what an armed people can do when invaded, look no further than Finland's reaction to the Russian invasion during WW2. Aggressor casualties were so high that they were unacceptable even by Russian standards, and they eventual withdrew. The Fins were an armed people, with a long tradition of owning firearms and of hunting; and it was not uncommon for a household to have a firearm in its possession. This was far less the case in much of the rest of europe. So when laws were passed down to the people ordering them to turn in their guns, most people were just not that inconvenienced by it because they didn't own any to begin with.

In all likelyhood, the poor folks being murdered in that picture were probably never armed, because it just wasn't in the european cultural traditions to be armed at the level of the individual and his/her home. However, if you compare their lot to that of the Fins, it could be legitimately argued that Germany's depredations might not have gone so smoothly for them. It would not have stopped germans from being genocidal, but it would have made it MUCH harder for them to enact such policies. Predatory behavior can only successfully prevail if the targets of predation lack the means to defend themselves. Sharks kill far fewer dolphins than they do penguins and seals.....

It is SO difficult to argue against knowledge and perspective.

alexrex20 wrote:

speedsix wrote: the Jews were powerless before the evil Germans because they had no means of defending themselves...

not all Germans were Nazis, some Jews were German, and believe it or not some Nazis were not German.

...I didn't say they were, I didn't say they weren't, and I didn't say that they weren't...but I think I understand your post...

sugar land dave wrote:...and I was just looking for a peaceful weekend....

...here? oh, come now...