The Anti-Defamation League condemned the comments, saying in a statement: “Ben Carson has a right to his views on gun control, but the notion that Hitler’s gun-control policy contributed to the Holocaust is historically inaccurate. The small number of personal firearms available to Germany’s Jews in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state.”
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson defended his controversial remarks this morning in which he suggested that 6 million Jews would not have been slaughtered if they had easy access to guns. “I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed,” Carson said on CNN Thursday. “I’m telling you there is a reason these dictatorial people take guns first."
Also how doers he know it is "historically inaccurate"? They did NOT HAVE GUNS because of Hitler so we'll never know. The world's worst tyrants who killed a hundred million in the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) tok away guns and the population could not defend themselves. Historically it is tyrants who want catastrophic control of the population who succeed in gun control. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated. in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million dead.
EVERY JEW a 22.
Why liberal/Democratic talking points about gun control are dangerous and stupid
1. How do you stop
murderers with guns if you have no guns? (1) Hillary just said it was illogical
and offensive to suggest way to stop armed gunmen is more guns for people to
protect themselves. She and the other leftists are the crazy ones. Disarm the
good so the evil can kill us more easily? gun free zones make easy targets. No
one can defend the innocent when a crazy person starts shooting.
2. We protect all our President and Pope with guns? Would
liberals remove these guns too? (2)
3. The cities with strictest gun control have highest levels
of murderers. (3) Our main gun problem is a direct reflection of horrible
Democratic policies on 1. welfare that destroyed Black families, incentivized
men to abandon their families leading to massive teen boys joining violent
gangs and shooting each other in our inner cities (Racist news media does not
care because they are black) teen blacks
shooting blacks account for 55% of gun violence. Destruction of the black
family is the issue and that was caused by idiotic Democratic welfare programs.
4. Trying to take away guns
from law abiding citizens will FAIL, just as making drugs illegal has failed,
and prohibition failed. Even if successful, then only criminals will have guns
and we will be worse off.
5. The world's worst tyrants who killed a
hundred million in the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) tok away
guns and the population could not defend themselves. Historically
it is tyrants who want catastrophic control of the population who succeed in
gun control. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated. in the 20th
Century because of gun control: 56 million dead. (4)
6. We have thousands of gun laws on the books (5) How about
enforcing them?
8. The US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.
(6)
9. Outlawing guns won't work. Only criminals would have
them. Example, prohibition, drugs now (7)
10. The more guns, the less violent crime (8)
11. Less guns do not = less suicide statistically
12 Israel has had no classroom shootings since 1974 when
they started arming teachers.
13. Jerusalem Mayor Urges Residents to Carry Personal Firearms
Civilians carrying their licensed weapons is an 'imperative,' Nir Barkat asserts, as Arab terror continues to sweep across Israel.14. Detroit Police Chief James Craig encourages residents to pack heat. The result? Crime in the city is down significantly
15. Maybe we need knife control instead.3 stabbings in Jerusalem last few days by barbarian Muslims. One of the guys who stopped the French Muslim barbarian on the train was just stabbed helping someone in California last night. Do we need knife control? Confiscate all knives??
Ben Carson, Jews and guns, and a media firestorm
Click photo to download. Caption: Ben Carson (pictured) ignited a media firestorm with his recent comments on Jews, guns, and the Holocaust. Credit: Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons.
By Abraham H. Miller/JNS.org
The explosive controversy over Ben Carson’s remarks about Jews, guns, and the Holocaust illustrates a new low in media spin. Carson is a Republican presidential nomination frontrunner, and the legacy press needs to undermine his credibility. Therefore, the controversy is not remotely about what Carson actually said, but about what the media says he said.
Contrary to the way Carson’s remarks are being reconstructed, he never said that if Jews owned guns, there would not have been a Holocaust. He said that if Jews owned guns, the Holocaust would have been different. Is there any doubt it would have been?
Predictably, the most vicious attack on Carson comes from The Jewish Daily Forward, where Carson is depicted as some sort of dangerous crazy whose remarks are offensive beyond measure to Jews.
The Forward goes so far as to reinterpret the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, one of the most courageous of the Jewish struggles against the Nazis, as an act of futility: “In the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, for example, armed Jews killed roughly two dozen Nazis. The Nazis, during the same uprising, killed 13,000 Jews.”
Seldom has an act of courage been so viciously corrupted as insignificant and meaningless. Worse, it is a false and incomplete characterization. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising had only about 750 active fighters. They were poorly armed. They held out for nearly a month against one of the world’s best-trained and best-equipped fighting forces. It is utterly irrelevant to argue that the Nazis killed 13,000 Jews during this period. They would have killed them anyway and at a faster rate.
The Forward grabs a number that far exceeds the number of those who took up arms just to underscore its argument that the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was insignificant. So, what is more offensive, Ben Carson’s characterization of the importance of resistance or The Forward’s diminution of one of the few triumphs of Jews against the Nazis? What is more insane and dangerous?
The Forward cannot comprehend the triumph of the human spirit, the hope and dignity that come from resistance. Their policy appears to be, better go quietly to the gas chamber and not make trouble.
Even when resistance is futile, it is worthwhile. It is better to die fighting like a lion than go to the slaughter like a sheep. The Forward believes that, faced with overwhelming military superiority, it is better to surrender, even when surrender means death.
Carson is also right about gun confiscation. The Weimar Republic had gun regulations that were oppressive. When the Nazis took power, they used the Weimar gun lists to confiscate the guns of all those they saw as their enemies, starting with the Jews. And while they did make the acquisition of guns easier, this only applied to party members, not to all Germans as The Forward mistakenly claims.
How the Nazis used the gun registration rolls to implement their tyranny is precisely detailed in Stephen Halbrook’s “Gun Control in the Third Reich,” published by the Independent Institute. Liberals have dismissed Halbrook’s work as irrelevant to the gun control debate in America, claiming that guns would have made no difference in Hitler's consolidation of power. If that were true, the Nazis would not have not pursued their policies of confiscation as vigorously as they did.
Jewish history tells us that if anyone should support gun ownership, it is Jews. Jewish liberals conveniently forget that through guns and organization, Ze’ev Jabotinsky prevented pogroms in Russia. In contrast to the Jews who were incapable of defending themselves at Kishinev, and whose cowardice became a blight on Jewish history, Jabotinsky’s armed Jews taught Russian peasants not to bring a farm implement to a gun fight.
If every 10 Jews who went to the slaughter killed one Nazi, there would have been 600,000 fewer soldiers to man Hitler’s ranks. So, yes, armed resistance would have changed the contours of the Holocaust.
The explosive controversy over Ben Carson’s remarks about Jews, guns, and the Holocaust illustrates a new low in media spin. Carson is a Republican presidential nomination frontrunner, and the legacy press needs to undermine his credibility. Therefore, the controversy is not remotely about what Carson actually said, but about what the media says he said.
Contrary to the way Carson’s remarks are being reconstructed, he never said that if Jews owned guns, there would not have been a Holocaust. He said that if Jews owned guns, the Holocaust would have been different. Is there any doubt it would have been?
Predictably, the most vicious attack on Carson comes from The Jewish Daily Forward, where Carson is depicted as some sort of dangerous crazy whose remarks are offensive beyond measure to Jews.
The Forward goes so far as to reinterpret the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, one of the most courageous of the Jewish struggles against the Nazis, as an act of futility: “In the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, for example, armed Jews killed roughly two dozen Nazis. The Nazis, during the same uprising, killed 13,000 Jews.”
Seldom has an act of courage been so viciously corrupted as insignificant and meaningless. Worse, it is a false and incomplete characterization. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising had only about 750 active fighters. They were poorly armed. They held out for nearly a month against one of the world’s best-trained and best-equipped fighting forces. It is utterly irrelevant to argue that the Nazis killed 13,000 Jews during this period. They would have killed them anyway and at a faster rate.
The Forward grabs a number that far exceeds the number of those who took up arms just to underscore its argument that the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was insignificant. So, what is more offensive, Ben Carson’s characterization of the importance of resistance or The Forward’s diminution of one of the few triumphs of Jews against the Nazis? What is more insane and dangerous?
The Forward cannot comprehend the triumph of the human spirit, the hope and dignity that come from resistance. Their policy appears to be, better go quietly to the gas chamber and not make trouble.
Even when resistance is futile, it is worthwhile. It is better to die fighting like a lion than go to the slaughter like a sheep. The Forward believes that, faced with overwhelming military superiority, it is better to surrender, even when surrender means death.
Carson is also right about gun confiscation. The Weimar Republic had gun regulations that were oppressive. When the Nazis took power, they used the Weimar gun lists to confiscate the guns of all those they saw as their enemies, starting with the Jews. And while they did make the acquisition of guns easier, this only applied to party members, not to all Germans as The Forward mistakenly claims.
How the Nazis used the gun registration rolls to implement their tyranny is precisely detailed in Stephen Halbrook’s “Gun Control in the Third Reich,” published by the Independent Institute. Liberals have dismissed Halbrook’s work as irrelevant to the gun control debate in America, claiming that guns would have made no difference in Hitler's consolidation of power. If that were true, the Nazis would not have not pursued their policies of confiscation as vigorously as they did.
Jewish history tells us that if anyone should support gun ownership, it is Jews. Jewish liberals conveniently forget that through guns and organization, Ze’ev Jabotinsky prevented pogroms in Russia. In contrast to the Jews who were incapable of defending themselves at Kishinev, and whose cowardice became a blight on Jewish history, Jabotinsky’s armed Jews taught Russian peasants not to bring a farm implement to a gun fight.
If every 10 Jews who went to the slaughter killed one Nazi, there would have been 600,000 fewer soldiers to man Hitler’s ranks. So, yes, armed resistance would have changed the contours of the Holocaust.
Abraham H. Miller
As Solzhenitsyn wrote, if every Soviet citizen bought the equivalent of a baseball bat and formed groups that set upon the state police when they came to arrest their neighbors, fewer people would have volunteered for the Organs (secret police); the Gulag would still have existed, but with a smaller population.
Carson reminds of us the human value of resistance. The Forwardreminds us that the cowardly mentality that Chaim Bialik characterized as belonging to the Kishinev pogrom is still with us.
Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science, University of Cincinnati, and a senior fellow with the Salomon Center for American Jewish Thought.
Download this story in Microsoft Word format he
I wonder when Israel will relax it's gun laws to allow more jews to own and carry them? It seems that it is becoming more and more necessary.
ReplyDelete