Joe the Plumber is trying to get attention for his blatant stupidity - AGAIN.
The man is an embarassment to this nation, to our values, to our education system, and to our politics. The right should kick his sorry media-whoring ass to the curb.
But they won't. Sam Wurzlebach, the not Joe-not-a-plumber, is repeating that lie that the right likes to promote, regardless of the apparent stupidity and obvious falsehood on the face of it. This can only appeal to the ignorant, and those who are incapable of rational thought. This personifies the most stupid of revisionst history attempts.
There were two sides in World War Two
The man is an embarassment to this nation, to our values, to our education system, and to our politics. The right should kick his sorry media-whoring ass to the curb.
But they won't. Sam Wurzlebach, the not Joe-not-a-plumber, is repeating that lie that the right likes to promote, regardless of the apparent stupidity and obvious falsehood on the face of it. This can only appeal to the ignorant, and those who are incapable of rational thought. This personifies the most stupid of revisionst history attempts.
Dumbass Joe/ Sam wants us to believe, wants to pander to, those who think that owning hand guns and hunting rifles and shotguns could have stopped the Nazis.
The Nazis prevailed because they garnered the same kinds of support as our modern tea party, the support of an angry, and not paticularly involved or educated society that played to emotions like anti-semitism and other racism.
If you really are foolish enough to believe that the presence of civilian guns would have been sufficient, given the early successes of the Nazi military, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with some of their victories over entire armies of people who were younger, more fit, better armed and better trained and more experienced that did not prevail over the Nazis. This is an excellent site for outlining that REAL history of events:
World War Two - German/Axis Successes and Failures
Britain?s policy of appeasement had failed to stop Hitler. Hitler invaded Poland on 1st September 1939 and Britain and France declared war on Germany two days later. However, there was little fighting for the first six months of the war and this period is known as 'the phoney war'.
There were two sides in World War Two
Axis Powers - Germany, Italy, Japan
Allied Powers - Britain, France, Soviet Union
The years 1939-1942 saw a string of victories for the Axis powers:
- September 1939 - Germany invaded and occupied Poland.
- April/May 1940 - Germany invaded and occupied Denmark and Norway.
- 10th May 1940 - Hitler launched a Blitzkrieg against Holland and Belgium. Both countries were occupied.
- 19th May 1940 - British troops were pushed back to the beach at Dunkirk and had to be rescued by British boats.
- 22nd June 1940 - France was occupied by Germany.
- Early 1941 - Germany and Italy attacked and had successes in Yugoslavia, Greece and North Africa.
- 22nd June 1941 - Germany attacked Russia (Operation Barbarossa) and had made some gains.
The notion of a false, pseudo-history of cherry picked information and tacky and belligerant right wing mythology appeals to those who have delusions about firearms generally, and their abilities with them specifically.
I have yet to see any modern example where a disorganized bunch of civilians, or a militia, armed with handguns and hunting equipment, were effective in preventing a genocide, or the seizing of power by a dictator, who are usually supported by a military coup.
Not Joe Not a real Plumber is appealing to the idiots on the right who suffer from delusions of the gun zombies and the ignorant right wing nuts silly fantasies.
Thomas tried to post a comment that was too insulting and too ill-educated to include here.
ReplyDeleteApparently he thinks that Hitler was able to enact gun control in neighboring countries, so that civilians wouldn't be armed opposition.
I haven't come across ANY references to significant civilian disarmament prior to WW II.
But then depth in history doesn't seem to be the hallmark of the gun zombies ("don't want brains, must have guns").
I'm still waiting for the brilliant argument supported by well-established facts, that show the civilian society of Poland could have succeeded where their military failed to stop the Nazis.
WELL SUPPORTED BY FACTS, not like the hilarious but utterly false contention that the Japanese did not invade the U.S. mainland because their military was intimidated by a few old white crabby and flabby guys with deer rifles and hand guns.
crickets?
"I have yet to see any modern example where a disorganized bunch of civilians, or a militia, armed with handguns and hunting equipment, were effective in preventing a genocide, or the seizing of power by a dictator, who are usually supported by a military coup."
ReplyDeleteHitler wanted to invade Switzerland. He didn't because even though the Swiss have a small standing army, he knew that an armed civilian population (which would be called militia) would not let him. Is it still gun control if the government requires all males to have a rifle? I suppose so, but it's gun control in a good sense.
The 'Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because of an armed civilian population' is crap.
DeleteIt is a big pile of stinking steaming crap on a par with the assertion that the Japanese didn't invade the mainland U.S. because we had an armed population.
Provide SOLID, reputable historic documentation for that claim (you can't - it is false) OR come up with a better example.
The government of Switzerland does NOT require all males to have a rifle - are you that poor at understanding, or recognizing fact? Is all your thinking provided by badly pre-digested fact-free gun loon bullshit?
Try reading. Try reading real honest well-researched serious peer-reviewed honest history sources. Not the silly stuff you've come up with here.
You'll recognize it by things like footnotes to primary source documents, and it won't be in the gun loon fantasy fiction department of any bookstore or library.
The Swiss require their very limited number of members actively in the military to keep a firearm at home ONLY during the short time they do military service, or are in the reserves for a short time afterwards. That pertains to those not residing on bases, which is not all of their military. They have VERY strict gun regulation for anyone who wants to buy their military weapon AFTER service.
Seriously Grandy-ose, you need to remediate your knowledge of other countries, and of history, particularly WW II history.
Then why didn't Hitler invade Switzerland? It's not a big secret that he had detailed plans to (see Operation Tannenbaum). And its not like there wasn't a sympathetic strain for the Nazis in Switzerland. Also, by some accounts Hitler took it personally that they wanted to stay neutral.
DeleteAs for reference to the Swiss militia in WWII:
http://www.scribd.com/bawb-2/d/24621951-Swiss-Army-in-WWII
But you probably already know that even though the number days that the qualified citizens have compulsory military service is actually less than year. They could still be conscripted up to the age of 60. What happened in 1939 after war broke out in Europe? The Swiss were able to mobilize nearly half a million men...in 3 days.
I addressed the shortcoming in your statement that a militia, in this case the Swiss, was not effective in deterring a dictator from seizing power. How do we know this? Hitler never invaded. Was the militia the only factor that kept Hitler from invading? We don't know. Logic would say it had to have been a large factor. We do know that Switzerland is landlocked and bordered by at least 3 countries that have spent centuries going to war, whether against each other directly, or by proxy. The Swiss have been able to stay neutral since at least a hundred years prior to WWI.
The Swiss military, and the possible resistance of Swiss citizenry, was NEVER EVER EVEN SLIGHTLY a deterrent to invasion by the Nazis.
DeleteTo posit that is stupid -- and I've just posted a two part post illustrating why. The Nazis knew they could take Switzerland, and the Swiss knew their resistance would be extremely limited.
"Then why didn't Hitler invade Switzerland? It's not a big secret that he had detailed plans to (see Operation Tannenbaum). And its not like there wasn't a sympathetic strain for the Nazis in Switzerland. Also, by some accounts Hitler took it personally that they wanted to stay neutral."
ReplyDeleteThey needed somebody to launder the money.
Actually, Hitler wanted to invade Switzerland, just like he wanted to invade every other country on the continent and Great Britain. His problem was that he had no genuine military expertise. He ignored his generals' advice/suggestions in dozens of instances.
Hitler's military invaded France, not because they were confident of not suffering casualties, but because it made sense from a militrary standpoint. Invading Switzerland, especially at any time after Operation Barbarosa would have been incredibly stupid--not that Hitler wasn't capable of being incredibly stupid.
Shitforbrainstommy's bons mal are emblematic of teh gunzloonz indignorance and their refusal to actually argue anything. They puke up the talking points that were stuffed into their heads and that's pretty much all that they do.