Pro-life, Abortion Rights and Gun Control

[Sparko]

Yes to making abortion illegal. The life of a child is worth more than the right to own a firearm.

Until that child is born into a world like Nazi Germany and you have no gun to defend him with.

[Leonhard]

Until that child is born into a world like Nazi Germany and you have no gun to defend him with.

That's a silly reductio ad hitlerum. The Nazi Party actually campaigned on a pro-gun platform, rolling back many of the gun restrictions of the Weimar Republic. Its a bit silly, and rather offensive to the jews, to compare the evil of the Holocaust to gun control.

I don't see why there's any hesitation with Christians here on this issue. Pro-life issues outweigh gun-rights issues. A baby's right to exist, is infinitely more important, than your right to own a working firearm in your house.

[Bill the Cat]

That's a silly reductio ad hitlerum.

It's not silly. It's a reality of some countries.

The Nazi Party actually campaigned on a pro-gun platform, rolling back many of the gun restrictions of the Weimar Republic.

Not for Jews.

Source: http://www.independent.org/guncontrol/

A year before Adolf Hitler took power in 1933, the German Interior Minister directed that gun registration records be made secure to keep them from falling “into the hands of radical elements.” His efforts proved futile: the records fell into the hands of the Nazi government, which used them to disarm its political enemies and the Jews. By 1938, the Nazis had deprived Jews of the rights of citizenship and were ratcheting up measures to strip them of their assets—including the means to defend themselves.

© Copyright Original Source

gun_control_third_900x1350.jpg

Its a bit silly, and rather offensive to the jews, to compare the evil of the Holocaust to gun control.

No it really isn't. Gun control is how the Third Reich was able to do what they did.

I don't see why there's any hesitation with Christians here on this issue. Pro-life issues outweigh gun-rights issues. A baby's right to exist, is infinitely more important, than your right to own a working firearm in your house.

Not true. Life, and the ability to protect it, are intimately tied together.

[Leonhard]

Not for Jews... Gun control is how the Third Reich was able to do what they did.

No Bill the Cat, even if the Jews were allowed to arm themselves the way that the rest of the German populace did, it would have changed nothing, other than them having some symbolic fights. They would have stood even less of a chance than the Tutsi stood during the Rwandan massacre. The vast majority of Germans supported the Nazi government, and even british writers extolled Hitler, and were eager for a solution to the "Jewish Problem". Eventually when the extent to which police and the military were employed, taking Jews away from property, this was condemned by said British writers (including Chesterton), but to imagine the Jews triumphing against an entire country that tried to eradicate them?

That's nothing more than gun magazine fantasies.

Life, and the ability to protect it, are intimately tied together.

I see no logic accomplishing that. Its armed forces and the police who bear the sword and keep the peace. God has given them the right to do so. Just as he has given governments the right to rule over people. I'm ambivalent about gun rights, I'm not a gun control activist.

But if you ask me whether life of the innocent child is a more important right than gun control, then I guess I'll stake the unpopular opinion here, that this case takes a higher urgency, and a higher weight.

[Bill the Cat]

No Bill the Cat, even if the Jews were allowed to arm themselves the way that the rest of the German populace did, it would have changed nothing, other than them having some symbolic fights. They would have stood even less of a chance than the Tutsi stood during the Rwandan massacre. The vast majority of Germans supported the Nazi government, and even british writers extolled Hitler, and were eager for a solution to the "Jewish Problem". Eventually when the extent to which police and the military were employed, taking Jews away from property, this was condemned by said British writers (including Chesterton), but to imagine the Jews triumphing against an entire country that tried to eradicate them?

I never said the Jews would have triumphed. I'm saying they stood ZERO chance of defending themselves after they were disarmed. I can guarantee Kristallnacht would have been far less successful had the SS needed to slow down for fear of getting shot.

That's nothing more than gun magazine fantasies.

Wrong. It's reality. A disarmed person is FAR easier to subdue than an armed one.

I see no logic accomplishing that. Its armed forces and the police who bear the sword and keep the peace. God has given them the right to do so. Just as he has given governments the right to rule over people. I'm ambivalent about gun rights, I'm not a gun control activist.

It's the armed forces who disarmed the English colonists and forced them to revolt. Had they not had weapons, they would never have been able to revolt as was needed.

But if you ask me whether life of the innocent child is a more important right than gun control, then I guess I'll stake the unpopular opinion here, that this case takes a higher urgency, and a higher weight.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin.

[rogue06]

I never said the Jews would have triumphed. I'm saying they stood ZERO chance of defending themselves after they were disarmed. I can guarantee Kristallnacht would have been far less successful had the SS needed to slow down for fear of getting shot.

Many years ago, about the time of the movie Mississippi Burning, I watched a former FBI informant in the Klan being interviewed on TV and the part that struck me was when he recalled the number of times some of them would get all riled up about this or that and start getting ready to go out and either beat or even lynch some black person and how he would then bring up the fact that the man they were after hunts for some of his family's food meaning he's armed and is a good shot. Inevitably this would give pause to the idea of going over to his place and starting trouble as they tended to decide to stay put, keep drinking and complaining.

[Leonhard]

I never said the Jews would have triumphed. I'm saying they stood ZERO chance of defending themselves after they were disarmed. I can guarantee Kristallnacht would have been far less successful had the SS needed to slow down for fear of getting shot.

They stood zero chance. With or without guns. They were outnumbered entirely. Guns didn't matter.

We're not talking about one odd group of racists, or another, having to reign in their murder-lust because the group they want to attack have rifles and know how to use them.

We're talking about a completely different time. Back when writers in England, in the US, in France, etc... talked constantly about the Jewish Problem; the inability of Jews to be part of the "civilised" life, but were something foreign to it. That they didn't integrate, and did shady deals with eachother, etc... Finding a British author back then who wasn't an anti-semite is difficult. G. K. Chesterton dedicated several writings to Jews, defending that they should be depicted as greedy, sly, lying and deceitful in fiction, that this was good and proper, that Jews because of their essential unbritishness should dress in ways so they could be recognised as such.

And that was water compared to what was in Germany. The British authors quickly turned around after Kristalnacht (in Chesterton's defense he'd go on to write that he'd "die defending the last Jew"). But Germany wanted them gone. And since you can't just deport millions of entrenched families, there was really only a couple of solutions: Concentration camps, and then later extermination. The German people cooporated with these things.

A small group, around 1% of the German populace, had pretty much no chance. The Tutsi similarly got absolutely slaughtered by the Hutus in the Rwandan massacre, and they were no less armed.

If they had begun an armed resistance, the army would have turned on them, and they would have been painted as rebels, insurgents, etc... resisting a "lawful" removal. The other Germans, who were also armed, would have assisted in their removal. It would just have resulted in a civil war. Whether a civil war would have been better than the fate the Jews suffered is academic to me.

They stood no chance.

Or you tell me. If the illegal immigrants in the US armed themselves. Would they stand a chance of being not-deported?

Wrong. It's reality. A disarmed person is FAR easier to subdue than an armed one.

A militia can form a resistance. We both agree on that. We had Freedom Fighters (aka terrorists on the right side) in Denmark as well. Blowing up train tracks, and making smaller acts of rebellion. Aiding British planes in bombing the right targets, such as factories producing weapons. But that was a situation that's incomparable. Denmark surrendered, and the Germans occupied Denmark fairly peacefully.

But if the Germans wanted Denmark destroyed, then we couldn't have done squat. They'd have burned us to ashes, and then burned the ashes. People helped the Freedom Fighters, and resisted in various ways knowing this was possible.

[Leonhard]

It's the armed forces who disarmed the English colonists and forced them to revolt. Had they not had weapons, they would never have been able to revolt as was needed.

I still don't know what to think of the American Revolution. I both sympathise with your Founding Fathers though it still looks wrong to me. It seems the US is founded on violent revolution and insurrection, not once, but twice, both celebrated in various ways. Yet the US also teaching that violent revolution and insurrection is a terrible thing and very bad, and any people doing anything like that are un-american.

[Sparko]

I still don't know what to think of the American Revolution. I both sympathise with your Founding Fathers though it still looks wrong to me. It seems the US is founded on violent revolution and insurrection, not once, but twice, both celebrated in various ways. Yet the US also teaching that violent revolution and insurrection is a terrible thing and very bad, and any people doing anything like that are un-american.

We didn't start the violence. We just wanted to be independent since Britain treated us like a source of income but gave us no representation. Britain tried to stop us and that started the violence.

[Cow Poke]

I still don't know what to think of the American Revolution. I both sympathise with your Founding Fathers though it still looks wrong to me. It seems the US is founded on violent revolution and insurrection, not once, but twice, both celebrated in various ways. Yet the US also teaching that violent revolution and insurrection is a terrible thing and very bad, and any people doing anything like that are un-american.

Serious questions, Leon - have you ever read the Declaration of Independence, wherein is listed the reasons the Colonists revolted? Assuming you have, do you think, perhaps, those were just trumped up allegations?

[Bill the Cat]

They stood zero chance. With or without guns. They were outnumbered entirely. Guns didn't matter.

We're not talking about one odd group of racists, or another, having to reign in their murder-lust because the group they want to attack have rifles and know how to use them.

We're talking about a completely different time. Back when writers in England, in the US, in France, etc... talked constantly about the Jewish Problem; the inability of Jews to be part of the "civilised" life, but were something foreign to it. That they didn't integrate, and did shady deals with eachother, etc... Finding a British author back then who wasn't an anti-semite is difficult. G. K. Chesterton dedicated several writings to Jews, defending that they should be depicted as greedy, sly, lying and deceitful in fiction, that this was good and proper, that Jews because of their essential unbritishness should dress in ways so they could be recognised as such.

And that was water compared to what was in Germany. The British authors quickly turned around after Kristalnacht (in Chesterton's defense he'd go on to write that he'd "die defending the last Jew"). But Germany wanted them gone. And since you can't just deport millions of entrenched families, there was really only a couple of solutions: Concentration camps, and then later extermination. The German people cooporated with these things.

A small group, around 1% of the German populace, had pretty much no chance. The Tutsi similarly got absolutely slaughtered by the Hutus in the Rwandan massacre, and they were no less armed.

If they had begun an armed resistance, the army would have turned on them, and they would have been painted as rebels, insurgents, etc... resisting a "lawful" removal. The other Germans, who were also armed, would have assisted in their removal. It would just have resulted in a civil war. Whether a civil war would have been better than the fate the Jews suffered is academic to me.

They stood no chance.

Dying with dignity while defending your right to live is far better than being tortured and starved to death. I've had the humbling honor to have talked to a few Auschwitz survivors thanks to my best friend's connection with Hope For Israel's ministry. They are pretty clear on the fact that if they had the opportunity to shoot back, they would have risked death rather than the atrocities they witnessed and experienced.

Or you tell me. If the illegal immigrants in the US armed themselves. Would they stand a chance of being not-deported?

Actually, yes. At least for a while.

A militia can form a resistance. We both agree on that. We had Freedom Fighters (aka terrorists on the right side) in Denmark as well. Blowing up train tracks, and making smaller acts of rebellion. Aiding British planes in bombing the right targets, such as factories producing weapons. But that was a situation that's incomparable. Denmark surrendered, and the Germans occupied Denmark fairly peacefully.

But if the Germans wanted Denmark destroyed, then we couldn't have done squat. They'd have burned us to ashes, and then burned the ashes. People helped the Freedom Fighters, and resisted in various ways knowing this was possible.

I guess I just have a different frame of reference than you.

[Leonhard]

Serious questions, Leon - have you ever read the Declaration of Independence, wherein is listed the reasons the Colonists revolted? Assuming you have, do you think, perhaps, those were just trumped up allegations?

I don't know Cow Poke.

Its one of those issues on the US where I'm fascinated with it, and yet I don't feel I'm confident enough in the history to completely defend the US. Triumphant language also tends to turn on my skepticism. Ask me on a different day and I'll probably grant you almost anything, but today I'm in an uneasy mood again on it. Just hasn't settled for me one way or the other.

As I see it they did have the means to peacefully argue and plead their case. They might have had to wait for the next king, but there was a means in place for it.

I'm sympathetic to your Founding Fathers. They were influenced by excellent political and philosophical ideas that were starting to permeate European thinking about societies and leadership. The idea that a people should be governed by consent, is noble. That at the core of a countries law should be a constitution that not even the government can change, is one other European countries were getting to as well. Denmark got ours in 1849. And your Founding Fathers had a possible tabula rasa to work on, to build some fresh and new unrestrained by old systems, and the British Empire was being heavy handed with them. But I don't just trust the triumphant narrative that I hear, and I've yet to find a good sobering historical account that I can trust. Right now all I find are the literal equivalents of mureals of George Washington looking like he's getting a vision from God, while he's signing the Declaration.

I don't think these men were keen on rebellion. Not all of them. Its clear though that they wanted the US to be able to govern itself. Which would be more efficient, than what they were going through at the time.

But still... In the end they committed insurrection, destroyed valuable property and eventually took up arms against soldiers that were rightfully there, causing a war that cost a lot of lives. Its inescapable that the US is founded upon violently challenging legitimate authority, and rebelling against it. I know its a useless game to play counterfactuals, and wonder what would have happened if they had just proceeded peacefully. I can't envision a scenario where the US wouldn't have been granted independence eventually.

I might just need to read more, to know more of the history, but I'm just split on this Cow Poke. Its one of those issues I wanna read up on more at some point when I've found a way to do that.

[Leonhard]

Dying with dignity while defending your right to live is far better than being tortured and starved to death. I've had the humbling honor to have talked to a few Auschwitz survivors thanks to my best friend's connection with Hope For Israel's ministry. They are pretty clear on the fact that if they had the opportunity to shoot back, they would have risked death rather than the atrocities they witnessed and experienced.

A fair point, but a different point to the idea that guns would have saved the Jews. I can accept this though.

Actually, yes. At least for a while.

Granted then. I withdraw my point on that.

I guess I just have a different frame of reference than you.

True, also I'm a bit of a contrarian sometimes.

[Cow Poke]

I don't know Cow Poke.

Its one of those issues on the US where I'm fascinated with it, and yet I don't feel I'm confident enough in the history to completely defend the US. Triumphant language also tends to turn on my skepticism. Ask me on a different day and I'll probably grant you almost anything, but today I'm in an uneasy mood again on it. Just hasn't settled for me one way or the other.

As I see it they did have the means to peacefully argue and plead their case. They might have had to wait for the next king, but there was a means in place for it.

I'm sympathetic to your Founding Fathers. They were influenced by excellent political and philosophical ideas that were starting to permeate European thinking about societies and leadership. The idea that a people should be governed by consent, is noble. That at the core of a countries law should be a constitution that not even the government can change, is one other European countries were getting to as well. Denmark got ours in 1849. And your Founding Fathers had a possible tabula rasa to work on, to build some fresh and new unrestrained by old systems, and the British Empire was being heavy handed with them. But I don't just trust the triumphant narrative that I hear, and I've yet to find a good sobering historical account that I can trust. Right now all I find are the literal equivalents of mureals of George Washington looking like he's getting a vision from God, while he's signing the Declaration.

I don't think these men were keen on rebellion. Not all of them. Its clear though that they wanted the US to be able to govern itself. Which would be more efficient, than what they were going through at the time.

But still... In the end they committed insurrection, destroyed valuable property and eventually took up arms against soldiers that were rightfully there, causing a war that cost a lot of lives. Its inescapable that the US is founded upon violently challenging legitimate authority, and rebelling against it. I know its a useless game to play counterfactuals, and wonder what would have happened if they had just proceeded peacefully. I can't envision a scenario where the US wouldn't have been granted independence eventually.

I might just need to read more, to know more of the history, but I'm just split on this Cow Poke. Its one of those issues I wanna read up on more at some point when I've found a way to do that.

Thanks

[MankyScotsGit]

Thanks everyone for the responses.