It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eyewitness to Hitler Warns - Keep Your Guns and Buy Guns

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tridentblue
 


You make a excellent point but you are wrong. Faith and devotion is what wins wars. Everything else is just a tool.




posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   


Eyewitness To Hitler


Best band name since "The Beatles".

Just sayin'


edit on 18-12-2013 by Bybyots because: . : .



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   

thisguyrighthere
Nobody needs to play the "Hitler card" anymore.

Several states right here are actively engaging in registration and confiscation today. Right now.

MA, CA, NY, CT to name a few.

Right now are using previously set up registration schemes and information gathered to send out notice/warning to people to turn in what was perfectly legal one day and should they not turn them in the police are knocking on doors.


This paranoid fantasy makes no sense. If there is organized police confiscation, would they bother with a list? They know 50% of houses have a firearm.

"Oh sir, I guess you are not on the gun list, we will absolutely not search your property at any time. Have a nice day."

And what will you and your small arms will be able to do against an actual oppressive government bent on oppression?

This is not a hypothetical situation. We can see this playing out in real time: Syria. You've seen the results. Ordinary people, even with plenty of rifles, have NO CHANCE against an organized army with even remotely modern weapons. When the rebels win it's because they have been externally supplied with modern military technology like anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.

Now suppose in this fantasy the US government turned full-on Assad. What will the difference be? Unlike the rebels in Syria, there will not be any external governments willing and able to smuggle in substantial quantities of professional military weapons for the rebellion. And the capabilities and technology of the US government are enormously higher.

What are you going to do against a B-2 or a F-16 dropping cluster bombs? Helicopters with all-weather infrared targeting systems? Area denial microwaves? EMP? Any vehicle that moves is instantly toast. How do you coordinate resistance? Remember all your phones are GPS tracked and tagged. You and horses and paper couriers against an army with air dominance, guided missiles and global electronic comm networks?

If there is any oppression it is likely to be "red-meat eating gun-rights advocates" getting bussed in from Oklahoma & Texas to San Francisco to wail on "liberal traitors".


edit on 18-12-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   

mbkennel

This paranoid fantasy makes no sense. If there is organized police confiscation, would they bother with a list? They know 50% of houses have a firearm.


Ladies and gentlemen, I give you fantasy:


he New York City Police Department (NYPD) is sending out letters telling gun owners to turn over their rifles and shotguns — or else face the consequences.

Read more: dailycaller.com...




NOW, California has a new Attorney General, a Democratic Governor, and a State Legislature also controlled by the Democrats. NOW the law is being reinterpreted, and SKS owners who acted in good faith by complying with the terms of Roberti-Roos are left holding the bag.
link democratic underground


Fantasy. Never happened. Isnt happening now. There arent three firearms in my home right now that I had to underground railroad out of states like CT and MA for friends and family. All made up. Just a grand delusion.
edit on 18-12-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   

iRoyalty


The reason the Nazi party went as far as it did was because there was no organised resistance. When guns were shipped in there were just pockets of resistance.

The reason American will NEVER get invaded is because every citizen would take up arms. There would be snipers on every street and armed militia on every road, you want to stop a totalitarian government? Get a gun.


No and no.

The reason the Nazis went as far as they did is they had the support of the vast majority of Germans. Dictatorships are run on leverage, not fear.

The reasons America will never get invaded is a) it spends more on defence than the rest of the world put together and has bases in most other countries and b) the impossibility of maintaining any kind of beachhed across thousands of miles of ocean.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   

g146541
reply to post by tridentblue
 


Yeah they have bigger n better weapons and we don't stand a ....wait a minute...Didn't the French resistance face the same problem?


The French resistance was organised, funded and armed from London. London ran everything from supply lines to communications to cash to arms to intel. Even then, it often took only one arrest for a local network to unravel completely. London would then step in and start again.

Any band that thought it could do it alone was quickly taken care of by the Germans.

Good luck with your brave struggle, mon ami. If it wasn't for the French you would still be talking English.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Hitler destroyed the existing medical system when he brought a national healthcare plan into being.


then using this system he killed 275,000 under the Nazi Euthanasia (T-4) Program
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Oh please, the overwhelming majority of Germans (Austrians included) were overjoyed by Hitler and the NSDAP. And as a little girl in Austria during the time, I highly doubt she was mature enough to realize what was going on. (In fact, the majority had absolutely no clue what was going on until after the war.) Also, Hitler never took anyone's guns, it was in 1919 after the first World War that the government prior to him outlawed guns. Hitler actually made it possible for people to own guns via offering licenses. (So yes, Hitler actually gave back the ability to own firearms.)

So she's just using Hitler to make a point. And although I find the way she did it rather erroneous, I do agree with the point being made. I think drawing a parallel between the USSR and Stalin more appropriate as that's more on the lines of what we're seeing happen today. Stalin was able to kill millions upon millions during peace time (and made Hitler look like a kitten) and he did this by denying news outlets the right to post news stories besides his approved propaganda. He did this by having his state goons (police) act like thugs, he was able to do this by making sure no one owned a gun.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929.

The Hitler gun control lie - Salon.com




posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


No. I think she is cherrypicking.
Of course there are similarities but there are many more opposites.
Both the Hitlercard as the race card just don't play well. So I will refrain from discussions about illuminating certain aspects that derive from a big complex proces for the sake of proving points in another totally different complex proces.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


You might want to read this:

www.dailykos.com...#



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   

MrSpad
with modern weapons even then, a mob with small arms was no threat.


I always get a kick of the crowd that thinks an armed civilian population has a chance against a military presence like the US. I enjoy watching the doomsday prepper episodes,but IMO the guys who think they can withstand a gov't takeover with their weapons are the craziest of them all.

Who would have thought had Saddam Hussein had been a dooms day prepper with a hidden bunker instead of having his own private army, history could have been significantly altered.

BTW I'm for guns, as a measure that helps keep equality among the strong and weak and as a deterrence against criminals in the world we live in today. However, to think we can overthrow our gov't with our guns is naive at best. The only hope we would have against a gov't hostile take over is the military men and women that serve our country themselves withstanding against the higher ups in commands. You can't fight back at someone that can be anywhere in the world with the capability to destroy you and your surrounding with a push button.




However, if I was in the tin foil hat crowd I might look at who truly benefits from the 2nd Amendment and Amricas gun culture. Tax paying gun companies and the US military. Interesting that.


Exactly. The gun and ammo companies have a pretty solid lobbying industry and they sure benefit from the virtual panic and non action delivered by the media and congress in regards to gun rights and restrictions.

edit on 19-12-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Whodathunkdatcheese

g146541
reply to post by tridentblue
 


Yeah they have bigger n better weapons and we don't stand a ....wait a minute...Didn't the French resistance face the same problem?


The French resistance was organised, funded and armed from London. London ran everything from supply lines to communications to cash to arms to intel. Even then, it often took only one arrest for a local network to unravel completely. London would then step in and start again.

Any band that thought it could do it alone was quickly taken care of by the Germans.


And more to the point, did the French resistance ever win?



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   

interupt42

MrSpad
with modern weapons even then, a mob with small arms was no threat.


I always get a kick of the crowd that thinks an armed civilian population has a chance against a military presence like the US. I enjoy watching the doomsday prepper episodes,but IMO the guys who think they can withstand a gov't takeover with their weapons are the craziest of them all.

Who would have thought had Saddam Hussein had been a dooms day prepper with a hidden bunker instead of having his own private army, history could have been significantly altered.


Right.

Saddam's underground bunkers were exceptionally well built, being designed by Eastern European firms to the standards necessary to withstand tactical nuclear weapons. Later analysis of the US bombing campaign and intelligence scooped up showed that in fact the US military scored numerous direct hits on his bunkers when Saddam was in them or very nearby. They originally assumed their intelligence was wrong and he was somewhere else but he wasn't. Eventually he was caught because the ground troops invaded and took territory.

Do suspects ever win against SWAT police?
edit on 23-12-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 





- Then they were forced to turn them in or risk capital punishment for keeping them.


FF do you reckon Obama could enact and enforce such a law under US constitution and statutory laws?



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


You prove my point.

1. He had an exceptionally well built bunker.
2. Yet, he still had to evacuate as he felt he had the need too.
3. He was caught.

So to think you can outlast a military takeover in your home in your bunker with your guns is just silly. You are a sitting duck.

I'm for gun rights , but you got to be either biased or naive to think that guns is a way to keep your gov't at bay. It might have been at one time, but the civilian population is no match for military presence that fights from their desks and at a push of a button can wipe your block away.

Sorry reality sucks and brings me no joy in telling it.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I really think that many conflicts could be swayed still by an armed force starting out with only firearms. Superior tactics is necessary obviously.

What do I know though, I am the kinda person who would make others go be cannon fodder while I raided their cupboards.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Countries with the strictest gun laws tend to have the most murders, countries with the most lax gun laws tend to have the least murders. Do your research and dont buy into the communist propaganda.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   

lucid eyes
Countries with the strictest gun laws tend to have the most murders, countries with the most lax gun laws tend to have the least murders. Do your research and dont buy into the communist propaganda.


Every statistic I have seen on the web suggests exactly the opposite conclusion. Can you provide a link to a source that you do not consider to be "Communist propaganda" that supports your statement?



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Don't support the NRA personally, but we sure as hell support gun ownership and have plenty in our house. My husband tells those who inquire, "we're safe, we're educated and we're deadly." ;-)



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Compare the gun laws of Jamaica (strict gun laws - one of the highest murder rates in the world) with Switzerland (lax gun laws, one of the lowest murder rates in the world). And thats only one example.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join