Yeah. But if obiwan^2 ever wants to become a writer he's not on track. Just putting huge quantities of words in a random order on a random website is not exactly surfing to success. I refuse to join a debate triggered by this terrible OP (which is probably for the best).

If every person in the world had a gun think how safe we would all be and of course there'd be no Communism ...... it's unfair that people label the average American citizen as pretty dumb but when you listen to what they have to say sometimes it's too easy to attach that stereotype.
I think you can bring out the best from them if you avoid certain topics:-
1) religion
2) the economy
3) communism or socialism
4) politics
5) history
6) beer (very confusing)
7) human rights and personal freedoms
Most other subjects you can expect them to be reasonable.

By reasonable I suppose you mean to say "think just like me"?

By reasonable I mean relatively objective

And by objective, you mean possessing the same irrational fear of inanimate objects-- and your own countrymen, with whom you feel "perfectly safe" when they're unarmed-- as you and the rest of the loyal subjects.

You know what, no. That was wrong, and I'm sorry I posted it. It's just been a very long day and I'm sleep deprived and I'm in a nasty mood-- so, please, accept my apology.

Faerie as you can see I'm just trolling......
I know it's wrong but sometimes I find it hard to resist 'cos I'm lazy :-)

Obi, the fate aspect was integral to the Iliad. It's why Aeneas didn't die sooner. I agree he wouldn't have been around for an Alamo last stand -- because Achilles would have killed him. Book 20. Read it.

I mention the Iliad since you say it was weak in the Aeneid. Not contesting your point, but it's not a matter of his later adventures. It's about the Trojan war.

I'm just saying in terms of the tone and overall theme of just The Aeneid alone, the whole fate thing is over-trumpeted and repetitive for my tastes...

Why are you still talking about the Aeneid? The Aeneid has nothing to do with Aeneas living or dying. It's the Iliad you should be concerned with. The Aeneid was written hundreds of years after the fact, probably based loosely on an epic tradition concerning Aeneas, composed by a non-religious man for a tyrannical ruler who needed his ego stroked. Of course the fate motif in the Aeneid is a little forced and weak! I never disagreed on that point with you. Why are you talking about the Aeneid when it doesn't connect to Aeneas's "fated to live"? Do you not see that your assertion that Aeneas left to save his son like any good father is false on the grounds that he should have died /twice/ in the Iliad and only by the virtue of the Fates did he live?

Love this forum.

Obi - What I disagree with you on is your assertion that the Jews tried to flee. They didn't. They just let themselves be led to the slaughter via the ghetto and then the camps. Some tried to hide and were slaughtered in the scouring of the ghetto but the point is most didn't ever try to flee.

The men folk could have taken up arms amd resisted to give their womem amd children time to escape but most Jews of Europe from the late 19the century to the mid 20th were pacifists and trusted God to get them out of jams like he did with Moses and the Egyptians. They looked for either a another Moses or Messiah himself to come save them and never acted to save themselves. I contend that, had they acted towards self preservation or family preservation, more women and children would have survived by fleeing while their husbands, fathers, and older brothers gave their lives to provide the escape.

Now you might say "But how would the women amd children survived in the wilderness?" I tell you Jewish mothers

Dang it!

Anyhow Jewish mothers are tough. I know many from my inlaws family and they are. more than capable of caring for their families with nothing but the land to live off them. They would have done it amd ended up better off than in a mass grave.

You say effectively "only six million died and it would have been more if they resisted." I say "six million died and it woul have been more if the allies had mamaged to wim the war but it could have been fewer if the Jewish men had tried to get their families out."

Sorry for a few typos above. Fat arthritic fingers, failing eyes, and a stupid smartphone soft keyboard...

"Why are you talking about the Aeneid when it doesn't connect to Aeneas's "fated to live"?"

Because I associate Aeneas more with The Aeneid than The Iliad, and it's The Aeneid's repetitive fate-mentioning that got on my nerves, and it's the Fall of Troy and Aeneas' fated flight as depicted in The Aeneid I was referring to...

And yeah, Virgil was writing hundreds of years after Homer, and Homer hundreds of years after the events (or whatever semblance they might have been based on) ever actually happened, but just as a work of literature, I was citing The Aeneid quickly.

"Do you not see that your assertion that Aeneas left to save his son like any good father is false on the grounds that he should have died /twice/ in the Iliad and only by the virtue of the Fates did he live?"

There are those instances, but he DOES ultimately leave...fated or no...

Frankly, if Aeneas is too much trouble to argue, I'll switch my analogy to one of the other heroes I mentioned, or many of the ones I didn't, lol, Aeneas specifically fleeing a lost cause for fate, family, or anything else isn't the only example possible to cite from literature, and literary references are here just being cursorily made to illustrate the point that even the bravest sometimes know to exercise the better part of valor and retreat, either for themselves or for their families or fate or whatever, and that doing so rather than dying for a principle is NOT a sign of cowardice for parents.

"What I disagree with you on is your assertion that the Jews tried to flee. They didn't. They just let themselves be led to the slaughter via the ghetto and then the camps. Some tried to hide and were slaughtered in the scouring of the ghetto but the point is most didn't ever try to flee."

Well, many never even got the chance, sadly...

"The men folk could have taken up arms amd resisted to give their womem amd children time to escape but most Jews of Europe from the late 19the century to the mid 20th were pacifists and trusted God to get them out of jams like he did with Moses and the Egyptians."

1. I maintain--what good would that have done when A. They'd still certainly have been killed (if you really think untrained Jews with pistols where going to defeat Nazi infantry...) and B. All that may have led to, then, with their dying either way, from camps or in a fight, is their families also being killed along with some Nazis...I've already said that there were plenty of nations already fighting and killing the Nazis, adding to that is pretty extraneous if it means even one more Jewish family being killed.

2. Hence a core reason for my stance against the existence of God--and certainly a benevolent one--when he "helps" in Egypt and not in Nazi Germany (and the first one to try and "justify" the Holocaust by claiming it was part of God's Plan gets the "God's Plan is Fucked Up Then Why The Fuck Do You Call It a Good Plan?!" award, and the first one to claim "God gave us free will, he couldn't interfere in our own evil, or chose not to in order to let free will stand" gets the "Then What's The Fucking Use of a God Who Won't Interfere or Help When it's Actually Needed While Commanding You To Praise Him and Oh Wait He Did Help in Egypt So If He Was Ever To Help EVER In Modern Times The Holocaust Is About as "Biblical" a Tragedy and About as Big A Time For God To Intervene Egypt-Style As Ever But He Didn't So Um Yeah What???" Award.) :p

"I contend that, had they acted towards self preservation or family preservation, more women and children would have survived by fleeing while their husbands, fathers, and older brothers gave their lives to provide the escape."

And I contend that resistance really WOULD have been futile in this situation--again, you're talking about using whatever stray weapons you can find to fight the most powerful army in Europe at that time, not to mention the civilian populace of Germany as well, as they participated in Kristallnacht...

Simply and sadly put, there wasn't enough of a realistic chance to warrant resistance, never mind the fact that (the point everyone continues to overlook) the Jews were isolated in ghettos, it's rather hard to coordinate any sort of resistance effort when you have poor conditions, a family to look after, are surrounded, no weapons or weapons that aren't up to the task, and so on...even WITH military-grade rifles they weren't trained to use them, and though some of the gun lobby here might think picking up a rifle instantly makes you John Wayne or Rambo, in reality it takes time, practice, and training to shoot that thing with any accuracy or ability, which the Jews (and most civilians TODAY, hence my opposition to assault rifles for civilians) utterly lack(ed.)

You could try and flee...and some did...

Or you could do what you were told and hope you got "lucky" and were simply put into one of the worst forced labor camps in human history rather than outright killed...though many in the labor camps died as well, obviously.

Forming a militia isn't an option when you don't have the time, resources, training, ability to communicate quickly enough to form anything meaningful before the Nazis arrive, and so on.

"Anyhow Jewish mothers are tough."

Ain't it the truth. ;)

I'm not arguing they're tough, hence why I'd have them take their chances fleeing rather than fighting...and they'll have a better chance fleeing with their husbands there to help, not because women are less capable than men, but just because when you're fleeing as a family, every last effort can help (not to mention the fact they'd probably WANT to flee as a family if they could.)

"You say effectively "only six million died and it would have been more if they resisted." I say "six million died and it woul have been more if the allies had mamaged to wim the war but it could have been fewer if the Jewish men had tried to get their families out.""

That is indeed what I argue, as to point to another aspect of the Holocaust--

The men put into labor camps were put there because it as thought they were fit to work...and some of those men DID survive.

If they fight and die instead of work and have a chance at survival after years of hell, more Jews will have died by virtue of their not having lived to have a chance at survival in the labor camps which some did, to say nothing of the fact that I maintain the rate and ferocity with which the Nazis exterminated the Jews would only have gone UP if resistance was put up...it's not as if the Jews were going to realistically bully or hold off the Nazis, all resistance would do would be to incense them even more and bring about more deaths quicker via even less restraint than before.

Obi,

You're assertions are based purely on hindsight, and you're using hindsight to justify an entire population just rolling over and accepting genocide. How many survivors, knowing what they know now, would have at least TRIED to resist? This idea that rising up would have made the rabid dog MORE rabid is nonsense. The Jewish population of Europe wasn't equipped, mentally nor physically, to fight -- we are in agreement there. However, the America People are, have been, and always will be. The plights of the Jews in the holocaust, the Russians under Stalin, the Chinese under Mao, and even the Native Americans at the hand of our own government are resounding lessons echoing throughout history telling us that GOVERNMENTS ARE DANGEROUS, and the People need ALWAYS be prepared to defend themselves against them should they turn tyrannical and genocidal. Those that haven't heeded this warning line the pits of humanity's dark history.

That is not paranoid conspiracy theory, that is HISTORICAL FACT. Those that refused to prepare, that give up their ability to defend themselves and their families, that assume, "that could NEVER happen here..." become historical statistics. Look up the University of Hawaii's genocide page. Look at the stats and tell me how many of those populations slaughtered at the hands of govenments were armed? How many thought, like the Jews of Europe, that it was just a phase, that it would pass, that if they just went along and didn't resist it would all be alright in the end?!? Too many my friend, far too many!

Having just returned from Germany, there is more to blame than simple lack of resistance - which in itself is a questionable statement - by the people to blame for the Holocaust. I'm not saying you're wrong, but there is a hell of a lot more to the story than the fact that the people didn't have arms. It's also worth saying that, under the Treaty of Versailles, the government wasn't supposed to have arms either.

@dipplayer
"Most liberals come at this from a place of ignorance"

This rhetoric is reductive and unsupported. You assume most people who favor gun limitations are urbanites. My state is one of the most rural in the country. I grew up among hunters and around guns. I took my first riflery class when I was 7. At my high school you were thought strange if your pickup didn't have a gun rack. Yet I favor certain controls and limitations.

Your broader point, though, is somewhat valid. "Assault weapons" are in the eye of the beholder, and any law should be more detailed in its definitions. If you want specifics, I think that the most contentious point that can/should be negotiated is the capacity of magazines for semi-automatic firearms. Personally, I'd like to see a low cap put on that. Call it 10 rounds, as an opening bid. As has been pointed out, magazines can be modified with relative ease by those with the knowledge and desire to do so, so this doesn't fix all of our issues, but I think making such tampering illegal is an important gesture.

The underlying truth that's not being discussed is that although semiautomatic rifles are the most contentious point and are under fire for their role in certain mass shootings, the fact is that most firearm crimes, both assaults and armed robberies, are committed with handguns, as are the majority of cases of firearm self-defense. Thus the styles of weapons, though contentious, are probably not as potent in detering, preventing, and investigating crime as controls and registration of firearms. Mandatory federal registration and licensing would aid in recovering stolen weapons, thus helping to get them out of the hands of those not licensed to have them. I understand this is also controversial and anticipate that DipPlayer will have reasons for opposing them, and I expect to hear them.

Wow. I just responded to a really, really old post on this subject. My fault for going to page 1 instead of last page.