Thursday, January 10, 2013

How the Gun Control Advocates Want You to See the Piers Morgan-Alex Jones Debate

This is what they are pushing.

When in fact, Jones was warning about what Stalin and Hitler did after guns were taken away from citizens in the Soviet Union and Germany.

Stalin's work in the gun controlled Soviet Union.

Hitler's work in gun controlled Germany.

It might be something for Alex to get worked up about.

BTW: Here's some background from The Straight Dope on gun controls in Germany:

1935 "has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration." (Nor, for that matter, does 1936...) Indeed, there was no need for the Nazis to pass a law like that, because the earlier Weimar government had already passed gun registration laws. When I asked [Clayton] Cramer [author of Firing Back] about his research, he said, "The laws adopted by the Weimar Republic intended to disarm Nazis and Communists were sufficiently discretionary that the Nazis managed to use them against their enemies once they were in power." In other words, they didn't need to pass additional laws. The Nazis did pass a weapons law in 1938, but that only added restrictions to the previous law, especially for Jews and other "non-citizens."[...]

Cramer further noted that although gun control laws helped the Nazis suppress political dissidents and round up German Jews for extermination, "they weren't the major part of the process." Later, when they invaded Eastern Europe, Cramer says the Nazis did indeed benefit from the inability of their victims to fight back. [...]

Cramer says the Nazis did benefit significantly from gun control in Eastern Europe in terms of "the inability of their victims to fight back." He cites The Holocaust, a book by Leni Yahil (translated by Ina Friedman and Haya Galai, Oxford University Press, 1990), which has a chapter discussing armed resistance by Jews, including rebellions with just a few firearms and a lot of courage. In addition, he talks about Israel Guttman's book, Resistance: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which discusses the difficulty the Jews faced in obtaining weapons.

Cramer believes that "if the population of Eastern Europe were as well armed as the average American, the Nazis would have lost much of their military capacity attempting to implement the Holocaust."
Here's what occurred after 1937, according to the Constitutionalist:

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)
  • Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
  • All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.

  • Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.

  • The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
  • Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

A Gun Control Law Passed by the German Government One Day After Kristallnacht


Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons

11 November 1938

With a basis in §31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and §9 of the F├╝hrer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:§1
Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons.  Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.
The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in §1 for Jews who are foreign nationals.  He can entrust other authorities with this power.
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.  In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.
For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.
This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.
Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior

A brief history of the Soviet Union under Stalin.


  1. I honestly don't like Alex Jones; he rubs me the wrong way. It's not so much that I disagree with what he has to say, most of the time, but rather the way he presents himself. He comes across as an obnoxious, loud-mouthed jerk, the libertarian version of Rush Limbaugh.

    Ron Paul would have answered Morgan's questions and gotten his message across without looking like an idiotic asshole. In fact, he probably would have made Morgan look like the obnoxious jerk.

    1. I think it is important to note that people have different communication styles. I would guess that you are a rather quiet, reserved person, that dislikes loud arguing. However, some people love that style of communication. Alex Jones will turn some people off, but he will excite others. I hope there is room in the liberty movement for different communication styles.

    2. The only people Alex Jones will exite are people who already agree with him.

    3. I sat with several people who are not readers of this site or familiar with the NAP and watched the Jones interview. The 3 I watched with perked up and took notice that I rarely see.

      The British accent aside, all 3 (females I might add) thought Jones made many good points and asked me about some of the more obscure references made during the segments.

      I was also greatly turned off by the rant the first time I watched. The second time through tempered that reaction. The first 2 minutes were actually quite good.

      I agree with Ed Ucation

    4. "Ron Paul would have answered Morgan's questions and gotten his message across without looking like an idiotic asshole. In fact, he probably would have made Morgan look like the obnoxious jerk."

      Ron Paul wasn't invited.
      Maybe you missed that.

  2. I understand where Rob is coming from and I also had never paid much attention to Alex Jones.

    But he is not seeking elected office. And nothing on television can stop the liberty movement now. Also, no gun controller will ever be convinced of their folly by a polite, decorum-filled "debate" on the Communist News Network.

    Alex was given a few minutes in front of the world, by an obvious shill for the State who apparently had no idea what he was in for... and Alex delivered. He absolutely unloaded on that presstitute. We all have different styles. I don't see him as obnoxious, just angry, and rightfully so. Alex was speaking for me. I'm proud of him.

    1. @ALT FEED: I tend to agree with Jones philosophically, but his righteous anger makes him come across as rude and obnoxious, which I think distracts from what he has to say. I can understand that, as I have frequently had the same problem, and one of the main reasons that I admire Ron Paul so much is that he is so good at keeping his cool while making his point.

    2. At first, I thought the interview was terrible. I don't like Jones' style, and I thought he made us all look bad. After seeing his post-interview clip in the hotel room, I got it. Just take a look at the 2nd appearance of Larry Pratt on Morgan's show. Smugness abounds, and Morgan is not interested in a factual debate, he only wants to show Pratt why he is wrong.

      In his hotel clip ( @ 5:05), Jones calls it like it is: these people are thugs, and they are not interested in meaningful debate. They have an agenda, which ultimately includes complete confiscation, and if we care about our rights then we better start getting mad when these people threaten them.

      Could have he done it in a better way? Maybe, but Jones showed up with an agenda of his own. Although I would have preferred a more eloquent mad person, no one has the balls to get mad, lest it affect their future opportunities to appear on the lobotomy machine. I'm now glad Alex got mad.

      I find the clip that Conan decided to edit even more infuriating. Jones is pointing out that (s)elected leaders have waged massive extermination of their own people, and the writers on his show saw it fit to completely negate his democide argument by making him look like a buffon popping off a Glock. Are you fucking kidding me?