The New York Post published a fascinating article about Hitler's favorite pistol.
Sounds like some of the guys I know, "prized pistol," and "fondness for firearms."Among these many treasures was a case containing a gold-plated semiautomatic pistol. Hitler’s initials were inlaid with gold on the ivory grips. This was the gift of Carl Walther, whose family made hundreds of thousands of weapons sold worldwide. Of all his gifts, Hitler, who had a fondness for firearms, particularly prized the pistol and, after the day’s festivities, had the pistol shipped to Munich, where he kept it in a desk drawer in his apartment.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
Apparently, Hitler was one of the original members of MS-13.
ReplyDelete"Solid Gold Pistol", according to Argosy's breathless teaser.
ReplyDeleteIANAMetallurgist, but I'm guessing that a solid gold "pistol"* would be
A.) Quite heavy
and
B.) Having to be worked on fairly regularly due to the gold's being too soft to hold up to repeated use.
I amember reading Argosy in the barber shop (back when I was a wee tyke) and knowing, then, that it was full of crap!
I think if your going to equate gun owners to Hitler, non gun owners will be equally equated to the 6 million dead Jews who had no means to prevent their fate.
ReplyDeleteOn this day, 67 years ago, America had to bring mass quantities of guns and bail out France yet again.
ReplyDeleteHitler's pistol has no value until it is melted down into its assayable value as a precious metal. Maybe Hitler's car. It's still fairly perverse.
ReplyDeleteIf one wishes to adulate celebrity status or kitsch, allow me to suggest the annual Hollywood Motion Picture and Television auction.
think if your going to equate gun owners to Hitler, non gun owners will be equally equated to the 6 million dead Jews who had no means to prevent their fate.
ReplyDeleteJune 6, 2011 4:17 PM
And you will be providing some citations to back up this latest bullshittery?
I'm only asking the question, here. I mean you're equating some sort of "gun control" with total confiscation and legislation outlawing possession of any firearms? Yes?
Since nothing like that is currently in the gunsightz ("gunsightz", get it? har, har!) of the U.S. congress--and if it was it would be D.O.A.--it seems like your analogy is another fantasy of the gunznutz crowd.
Did you guys all miss the part where the gun is gold plated?
ReplyDeleteIt wouldn't be "soft" and inoperable nor could you melt it down. I suppose you could somehow remove the gold plating but I am sure even at today's metals prices, the gun would be far more valuable as Hitler's gun.
"And you will be providing some citations to back up this latest bullshittery?
ReplyDeleteBullshittery? lol. Simply answering the author's querry. If he wishes to invoke Godwin's law on his blog, that's his fancy.
"I'm only asking the question, here.
Is not the history of gun control not rooted in racism? You do know that free blacks could own firearms without any type of restriction in the north up until the end of the civil war don't you? Heck, it wasn't until the supreme court gutted the 13th-15th (ending the 1st civil right's movement) that gun control began its earnest growth (and largely in the south).
Cruikshank was the case. It led directly led to the Colfax Massacre. Disarming blacks or the poor is not a new concept. Your side's narrative is just more refined these days.
Cruikshank was the case. It led directly led to the Colfax Massacre. Disarming blacks or the poor is not a new concept. Your side's narrative is just more refined these days.
ReplyDeleteYou son of a bitch don't you go pointing out that the majority of racist laws in the US have been proposed and defended by the Democrat party they hate it when you do that....
Weer'dbeardmikeywsockpuppet@12:52&1:47:
ReplyDeleteThe repbulicans that used to be democrats prior to the voting rights act and the civil rights act would be the racist fucks that you're talking about.
Just like Hitler, the racists in this country only wanted to disarm the blacks so they could have an easier time intimidating them. You boys love to use some really, really worn out and discredited facts. But, considering that there's nothing current that supports your idiocy I can understand where you're coming from. Your idiots, but it's understandable.
"Did you guys all miss the part where the gun is gold plated?
It wouldn't be "soft" and inoperable nor could you melt it down. I suppose you could somehow remove the gold plating but I am sure even at today's metals prices, the gun would be far more valuable as Hitler's gun.
June 7, 2011 12:49 AM"
No, actually, we didn't, Argosy did. I was thinking that perhaps the hyperbole would not go unnoticed. Sadly, I forgot that I was talking to people whose gunzluzt is overarching.
"But, considering that there's nothing current that supports your idiocy I can understand where you're coming from......"
ReplyDeleteMay I suggest you read the McDonald descent by Stevens? You are capable of reading 2 year old case law, aren't you? That racist piece of shit relies on Cruikshank throughout the entire rambling disconnected argument. Fitting for his last piece of professional work.
I repeat, Sounds like some of the guys I know, "prized pistol," and "fondness for firearms."
ReplyDeleteSuck it up boys. You have this in common with the big H.
The repbulicans that used to be democrats prior to the voting rights act and the civil rights act would be the racist fucks that you're talking about.
ReplyDeleteOh right, I missed the part where the national parties all switched their jerseys and started playing for the other team.......
Just like Hitler, the racists in this country only wanted to disarm the blacks so they could have an easier time intimidating them. You boys love to use some really, really worn out and discredited facts. But, considering that there's nothing current that supports your idiocy I can understand where you're coming from. Your idiots, but it's understandable.
And just like Hitler, all you Democrats are Socialists..... and National Socialists to boot.....
Dumbass wrote: "Oh right, I missed the part where the national parties all switched their jerseys and started playing for the other team......."
ReplyDeleteIt would appear you did. There is nothing discredited about the 'southern strategy' for example used by Nixon. It's fairly well documented -- I'm guessing you haven't been to many of the presidential libraries for example. You don't appear to be much interested in libraries OR primary source material.
You seem to be one of those who likes their history predigested for them, regurgitated for them to consume by some propaganda hack who creates revisionist history rather than something more factual.
I don't particularly think wikipedia addresses topics in depth, but sometimes they do a good introductory article as they do here. I hope you will consider following up and reading further; their footnotes aren't half bad for that either. Consider it a starting point for educating yourself to be more fact based.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southernization_(US)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Southern_United_States
You know you've won an argument when the other side resorts to slinging insults. Thanks democommie, I win.
ReplyDeleteYou'll note in no place have a mentioned party as the gun issue isn't owned by either group.
You wanted something recent. Steven's dissent in McDonald is pretty clear. Read it.
BTE- The ideology between parties has somewhat switched over the last century but not totally.
Regardless, I was pointing out where it started and the roots behind it. Plainly rooted in racist as well as elitism. Same as today.
You know you've won when the other side of the discussion has to make up facts,and clearly doesn't know them, as happened here with the comment about national parties switching jerseys.
ReplyDeleteDemocommie, Is that really Weer'd, that pusillanimous pos?
ReplyDelete