REVIEW: Anti-Genocide Doc ‘Screamers’ Contradicts Itself, Calls For End of Private Gun Ownership
by Dan GiffordGenocide is an ugly subject that needs to be shoved into every generation’s face because the deliberate extermination of some targeted group by their own government occurs somewhere in the world during every generation. What does not need to be pushed in conjunction with that awareness is the propaganda of pacifist victimhood and the exoneration by omission of the most prolific mass murderers because of an affinity for their ideologies. One spreads the false perception that resistance is futile, that none of those marked for death can or have saved themselves by fighting back. The other avoids all mention of the political dogma solely responsible for most mass murder. Screamers is a documentary that does all of the above.

Film director Carla Garapedian accomplishes that while following a tour of System of a Down. It’s a rock band of Armenian descended Americans (I reject hyphenated Americanism) who use much of their music to express outrage about the 1915 massacre of more than 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Turks and the fact that neither today’s Turkish government or President Obama will say it was genocide.
Never happen again? Her lips to God’s ears.
But genocides always happen again. And the film’s exclusion of two reasons they do started me “screaming” at Ms. Garapedian during a Director’s Guild Q&A session.
First, why are the mass killings of the Nazi socialists repeatedly named, while those committed by communist socialists are ignored? Second, why is there no mention that the Armenian genocide and all the others were preceded by a lawful disarming of those to be slaughtered by their own government and that those who broke those laws fought back and often lived?
The film’s Cambodia example doesn’t mention Pol “The only good bourgeois is a dead bourgeois” Pot’s Utopian Marxism motivation. Worse, Screamers says nothing at all about the estimated hundreds of millions offed by Stalin, the Jong-ils and Mao Tse Tung regimes. That’s exponentially more dead than Hitler ever wet-dreamed about. So why do the most prolific butchers in recorded human history, the communists, get a Screamers pass, I asked?
That question’s point got lukewarm acknowledgment from Garapedian and maybe 30% of the Director’s Guild audience. Gloria Allred even applauded after making sure she wasn’t alone. But my second question about armed resistance turned the entire audience against me and elicited a humored dismissal from Garapedian about that being “an interesting NRA idea she had never heard before.”
She would have had she properly researched the subject – or maybe she did and found it politically incorrect. Either way, the facts were published long before Screamers was filmed by George Mason University School of Law Dean Daniel D. Polsby and constitutional law attorney / criminologist Don B. Kates, Jr. in the Washington University Law Quarterly.
Having systematically disarmed Armenians through a series of decrees … the Turkish army and police were able to round up and kill over one million Armenians by a combination of overt murders and forced marches over hundreds of miles without food or water. However, thousands of Armenians from Aleppo province (modern Syria), who had secreted guns, took to the hills. Having defeated the first Turkish army units sent against them, they retreated from stronger forces in good order, until they reached the sea where the British, who were at war with the Turks, evacuated them.

Armenian genocide resisters 1915
The Armenian prelude to annihilation was not unique.
“The Nazis disarmed the Jews; the Khmer Rouge disarmed the Cambodians,” notes Emory University law professor Alexander “Sasha” Volokh. One Cambodian survivor recalled Khmer Rouge soldiers told villagers “We are here now to protect you, no one has a need for a weapon anymore.” … [This all] took nine or ten days, and once the soldiers had concluded the villagers were no longer armed they dropped their pretense of friendliness.”
“It is an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed … We argue a connection exists between the restrictiveness of a country’s civilian weapons policy and its liability to commit genocide upon its own people,” Polsby and Kates concluded.
Like the omitted communist connection to mass carnage, that’s major stuff to be missing from a documentary about preventing genocide — too major to have been unwittingly overlooked, I suspect.
Screamers is being shown to world leaders — most recently Canada’s Parliament — as part of an apparent effort to advance support for a world prohibition on private gun ownership. It’s worth noting too that the most repressive United Nations members have long wanted to ban private firearm possession so they can more safely impose totalitarian control and commit future genocides if desired.
Oops, did I just expose the twisted meaning of this UN headquarters sculpture that “self-defense is a privilege that governments may choose to grant or withdraw?” The practical application of that position is this: When the police or soldiers show up and it’s obvious they intend to kill you, do you have a right to defend your life or an obligation to obey the law and die?

- The United Nations in New York City
My Director’s Guild experience indicates the correct answer is die. But that’s no surprise in a Hollywood so smitten by collectivism that Mao’s Kitchen and it’s “Red memories” of 100 million plus Red murders are considered trendy restaurant decor.

CHINESE COUNTRY-STYLE COOKING WITH RED MEMORIES
Perhaps the naiveté of passivism caused Garapedian to adopt the Michael Moore documentary model of only including those facts that promote her politics.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
103 Comments
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” (Mahatma Gandhi, from a leaflet he issued, quoted in An Autobiography, 1957)
“Back in 1982, the town of Kennesaw, GA, passed a law requiring every head of household to keep a gun in the house. The story got international attention. Columnist Art Buchwald wrote a piece for The Washington Post predicting routine arguments would be settled in Wild West shootouts. Sound familiar? What really happened in Kennesaw is the population boomed, and crime plummeted. The town of 5,000 in 1982 is now more than 30,000, and there hasn’t been one single Kennesaw resident involved in a fatal shooting since the gun requirement went into effect. Yes, guns are good; some people are bad. Others are just ignorant.” (Phil Valentine, “What? No OK Corral?” The Tennessean, 9 August 2009)
So apparently genocide is wrong, but so is defending yourself from the people who commit genocide? Weird.
It kind of reminds me how the people who were most vocal about "BusHitler" and the Coming Neocon and/or Religious Right Neo-Fascist Tyranny also tended to be the biggest supports of gun control, if not outright gun confiscation. What happened to those Liberal fantasies and daydreams of being in the French Resistance or the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and taking arms against fascism?
Which in turn reminds me of something William Buckley wrote during the Nixon Administration, when the Radical Chic crowd was also predicting an imminent fascist tyranny. (Quoting from meory here.) "If so, should we not encourage, rather than discourage, the ownership of firearms? I for one would like a well-stocked armory when the storm trooper comes knocking at my door."
Never again let them take your guns.
Great Ganshi quote, nolotrippen! Wonder what Deepak Chopra would make of it.
Sounds like this film FAILED in making the connections between Statist governments, gun control and the victimization of citizens. So in the end, it FAILED THE CITIZENS.
To want to defend yourself and your family is to drop any pretense that the government (including the US government) can defend us.
The founders knew the importance of speech and guns, which is why these proclamations of our Rights are Number 1 and Number 2 in the Bill of Rights.
Mr. Buckley, as usual, had it right.
Any mention of Israel's genocide of the Palestinians (supported by US tax dollars)?
there is nothing so insufferable as a know it all who doesn't.
it frosts my mug when "documentaries" and any other edducational outfit omit crucial information because it gets in the way of the point. If you are going to hold yourself out as a documentatrian, you have an obligation to present the whole story. Otherwise what you have is a movie inspired by true events.
As usual, the left doesn't let facts get in the way of their true agenda. Oppressive governments take away their citizens' right to defend themselves and then slaughter them without resistance. What does the left take to be the moral of the story? Genocide is wrong so ban guns.
Probably find some way to dismiss it as an alternate universe that has no connection to reality, and then meditate out a couple of earthquakes to cover it.
I've often thought how ironic it is when reality turns out to be the complete opposite of what conventional wisdom would indicate.
And the more I look t things the more I see it.
I've heard the second amendment described as the Constitution's reset button.
it frosts my mug
Why do I get the feeling as that thought was running through your head, you were thinking of a more colorful metaphor?
I've debated gun control to no end with modern liberals. I even got one into a corner so tight he had to admit, the reason he was for gun control is because he feared what other free people would do with that freedom to him.
It's not so much that modern liberals appear to be against freedom, it's that what they really want is control of the population, because they are scared to death of an uncontrolled future.
Enter the democratic party with lofty promises and guarantees.
I'm trying clean up my language
so that and "frosts my flakes," "frosts my cookies" etc are popular at the moment.
and it's over 100 degrees here so it helps maintain my internal temperature
i will sometimes use "chops my salad" or "burns my toast" or "fries my bacon"
I am always on the lookout for more if anyone has advice.
[...] the original post here: REVIEW: Anti-Genocide Doc ‘Screamers’ Contradicts Itself, Calls For End of Private Gun Ownership This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Yes I've come to realize that collectivism requires many branches of control. Destroying the family, destroying the individual's responsibility, destroying the church & communities through Federal social welfare, destroying the right to defend one's self… all of these, in their mindset of enslavement, must be attacked, over and over and over. And they use "truths" as in, documentaries, professors, anything 1 sided… no debates… no DEBATES.
DEBATE!!! Thank you, and let's make our own documentaries, films, bumper stickers, t-shirts, poems,…
Good work, great article, I love Big Holllywood!
I've never heard that before, but I like it.
Yes. Nail. Head. Etc. Well said.
I'd like to live in a world where nobody carries a gun because there is no need to carry a gun. Confiscating guns will NOT produce that kind of world. Instead, it will produce a world of heavily-armed criminals and unarmed, legally-pacified crime victims. Never mind what it does to the relationship between government and citizen…
Rock stars: is there anything they ACTUALLY know?
For those unfamiliar with System of a Down, they pal around with the far-leftists Rage Against The Machine crew and actually advocated the release of Charles Manson from prison…the same Manson with a swastika carved in his forehead. In other words: System of a Down is bat-crap crazy.
As a member of the Jewish faith the concept and reality of genocide is very real and personal to me. My family escaped genocide in the Ukraine in one generation, then fought against it in the next, my Grandfather and the men of the 15th Air force 461st Bombardment group wreaked Holy hell upon the enemy.
Guns are vital to keeping a rogue government at bay, they are also a barometer of personnel freedom, when citizens on the left seek to take ours away, no matter how well intentioned their beliefs, we must fight them for eternity. The moment we disarm it is then that a future tyrant will be tempted. We must persuade our fellow citizens that the benefits of individual and private ownership of rifles and pistols, no matter what they look like or how they function, far outweigh the costs. Admittedly that cost at times is gut wrenching, but we must bare it, and we must do everything in our power to limit that cost by being responsible citizens with our firearms.
The disconnect with the majority of modern liberals is they simply don't understand the calculus of many issues and situations.
It is pretty simple, if people are killed by guns, get rid of the guns, problem solved. They can't grasp the unintended consequences of good sounding, simplistic ideas. As I've said before, the vast majority on the left have their hearts in the right place, it's their heads that are up their asses.
I disagree! Though I love your stuff!!! Your first post was excellent… I've come to the conculsion that their heart is not in the right place… their heart is in a safe happy fantasy land protected by a giant controlling govt. They don't want peace & safety, they want control and if not control, enslavement. And liberals generally think that they will be on top, so its okay.
Hillary has signed the US onto the UN's Small Arms Treaty which is the prelude for gun confiscation worldwide. I hope you all know that they plan to confiscate our gold, but first they have to take away our guns. The Progressive Fascist Game Plan is all too obvious. Keep in mind that they will need Amnesty to keep themselves in power until the final tipping point. I wish Gov. Brewer would put a call out to all ex GI's/Marines who are still in good shape to form a State Militia to roam the Arizona Border. I would gladly contribute to defray the expense. It's time to ROLL!!
What they want is security. They are terrified by the unknown future. They want something to make it all go away. But they can't, because it doesn't exist. Democratic politicians feed on that fear.
It may not seem like it very often, but in reality liberals, libertarians and conservatives agree on about 95% of things. Who doesn't want a clean environment? Who doesn't want good schools? No one.
That last 5% we don't agree on is how best to achieve that. And politicians have pitted We The People against each other decrying 'our side can do it if it only weren't for those other guys over there who are preventing us. Despise them, hate them, vote for us, and we'll take care of it.'
Previous comment is under review. Since signing up for this intense debate setup, I've made an effort to elevate my use of the English language, sometimes I win and sometimes I lose this fight with my desire to raise my middle finger at liberals in public. That said. Any way to get a list of words that are verboten so I can avoid their use in the future, and not face delay while Hal 9000 decides if he is going to let the air out of my airlock?
Being friends with the guys from System, particularly Serj, it's not surprising they were used to provide the music for this documentary since they are Armenian. Before Serj and the guys were signed to a label they would show a 5 min documentary about the Armenian holocaust prior to many of their shows . The irony however is that the guys in System love weapons, have guns/knives/, and since I personally know them I can attest to the fact that they reject the anti-gun aspect of the documentary.
Liberals need to realize that many things that come out of the mouths of these rockstars is done for public consumption/shock value. It's pandering to a fringe group: the unemployed that live in their parents basement and beg mommy/daddy to buy them System cd's.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.” -Adolf Hitler
Good one nolo.. Going to swipe that for a Facebook post.
I've heard that the second amendment makes all the others possible in the first place…
What silly liberals are doing is attacking a sympton not the problem. The problem is our capacity for violence, our inhumanity to man. Sorry but that's a part of human nature, and no amount of gun-grabbing will make a difference. John Lott wrote a fantastic book "More Guns, Less Crime". I highly recommend all gun-grabbers read it.
What happened in Kennesaw GA can happen everywhere if people are allowed to defend themselves and their property. But to ignorantly disarm people just because YOU don't feel safe, is nothing short of fascism. When they come banging on your door demanding you hand over your weapons, ask yourself why they would do that.
Anyhoo, good luck trying to take my guns….
System of a Down singer/leader Serj Tankian is an outspoiken, big time liberal activist. Why would you expect anything less?
There is a trend of underlying ironic sadness to this: The documentary devotes attention to Khmer Rhouge, Pol Pot, and Cambodia. But on Serj's webpage he advocates for Noam Chomsky, one of the most prolific Cambodian Genocide deniers alive today.
I like to think what sets us apart from so many other countries, especially the ones in which genocides have occurred, is that our military takes an oath primarily to defend the constitution. It doesn't take an oath of loyalty to the government to simply carry out whatever orders are issued. I believe a lot of gun grabbers overlook that very important fact since they have a not-so-subtle disdain for the constitution.
In my opinion, if the government ever attempts to disarm the citizens of this country, it will be an impossible task—the biggest reason being that it will have to be carried out by bureaucrats instead of by squads of armed men who know how to use firearms. The best entity for disarming a population will always be a military that is skilled in the use of weapons. I simply don't believe our military would ever go along with such an order, no matter who issued it, because of their oath.
I really think the military plus the enormous number of American gun owners will always defeat any tyrannical government that attempts violence against us. To tweak a Doors lyric: We've got the guns and we've got the numbers.
The weakest possible criticism of an allegedly politically-biased work is that it's not biased in your preferred direction.
Nobody is coming to take your damn gun. No, not even the eeeeevil kenyan-secret-muslim-communist-pod-person-with-the-scaaaaawy-foriegn-sounding-name-in-the-white-house. No, really. See, I found this place called Reality, right? And I went there and checked, and apparently there's NO plan to come take away your gun.
I've also got it on good authority that there's no plans to confiscate anyone's genitalia or security blankets, either… not that there's some sort of psychological correlation between those three things of course…
This film is apparently biased against reality, which is why the criticism is entirely valid. Genocide is only possible when one side is disarmed. That's the truth, even if it grates against the politically correct notions of those on the Left.
Maybe someone on the Left will understand if I put it this way: Would it have been easier or harder for Native Americans to retain their land and their culture if they had possessed firearms?
"I've also got it on good authority that there's no plans to confiscate anyone's genitalia"
So I guess you just gave yours up voluntarily then…..it explains a lot…..
Yes, they are going to ANNOUNCE ON TV that they are coming to take away our guns. The plans are clear; what htey want is is for US to disarm ourselevs because of their wonderful propaganda. But as long as Hollywood's best can hire gun-toters to defend themselves, I should be able to own a gun to defend myself and my family and friends.
Not to mention the constitutional side of the question. Rights are granted by God, not by the state, and the right to self-defense is one of the most basic– especially when defending myslef against an over-powerful statist government.
For some reason this made me think of the Monty Python "Bring out your dead" scene, only I pictured the guy yelling, "Bring out your genitals!"
"Yes, they are going to ANNOUNCE ON TV that they are coming to take away our guns. The plans are clear; what htey want is is for US to disarm ourselevs because of their wonderful propaganda."
They who?
See, THIS is where almost all modern conspiracies break down: WHO exactly is the phantom bad guy? The Soviets are GONE, the Chinese ALREADY own us for all intents of purpose. "The Left" even in this country is more concerned with social issues than social-ISM. So what grand evil entity is out to "get you" NOW? Even if one accepts this notion of Obama (or at least his eeeeeeeevil policies) as the tools of a big-scale "takeover" – WHO'S taking over? The vermin in the Afghan caves? S.P.E.C.T.R.E? Who are you afraid of?
It's okay. You can tell Mr. Shooty to calm down, no one is going to come and take him away.
I don't know whay the gun control people can't get it in their heads that guns don't kill, people do, guns just make it easier. Might take a little longer, but he's still dead in the end.
I know if I ever get mad enough to kill someone, I'll do it with my bare hands if I have to, but I'm going to do my best to kill him. Slice, dice, puree, cut his brake lines, there's a million ways to do it. It doesn't make the crime any less horrendous just because you didn't use a gun.
With all that being said why would you not want to have a better way to defend yourself against an idiot like me with a knife!
If the 6 million Jews had firearms and used them, Hitler would have quickly run out of thugs to do his dirty work.
"They who?"
The apparatus of government itself, silly. Bureaucracy will always look out for itself first and the people second. An unarmed populace is a compliant populace. Whether it's even possible in this country is another matter.
What's not in question, though, is that government power has increased at a near exponential rate over the last century. The size and scope of our government has grown dramatically in just these past ten years, first during Mr. Bush's presidency and now during Mr. Obama's. The biggest threat to our liberties will always come from within, from our own government. The founders clearly understood that fact, and they stated as much on numerous occasions.
I find it alarming how folks like you casually laugh off the suggestion that our government might not be a shining example of truth and honor. It has a long, messy history of trampling on the rights of all sorts of people. I realize it's not necessarily fun to discuss the various misdeeds of the people in Washington, but it's not wise to simply ignore them and "hope for the best." Our government—and indeed every government throughout history—has done bad things and tried to accumulate more power for itself.
Since you believe our esteemed government isn't possibly capable of doing anything wrong, did you know Obama recently authorized the assassination of an American citizen? I suppose there's nothing scary at all about allowing the government that kind of power, right?
"Slice, dice, puree…"
Time to ban the Slap-Chop.
Save your breath, you might as well be talking to styrofoam….
I find it telling that those same folks who vocally dreaded the coming of a "Religious Right Neo-Fascist Tyranny" have little to say about *actual* religious tyrannies like Iran, and are the first to defend terrorists as hapless victims of Imperialism.
I'll place my trust in my guns over the U.N. any day of the week.
"You can tell Mr. Shooty to calm down, no one is going to come and take him away."
MovieBob, I take it you have never been to California. I suggest you pay this place a visit, then tell us how much of a "whacky paranoid conspiracy theory" gun control really is.
I think the same thing when I hear leftists complaining about capitalism. Human greed is a persistent problem of humanity, and it won't be solved by preventing people from acquiring private property or making a profit. Greed will only manifest itself again in different ways – witness the ways in which the members of the ruling Party line their pockets, despite claiming to be "equal" with those they oppress.
Like capitalism, private gun ownership doesn't seek to alter human nature, but to recognize it and attempt to direct it in a beneficial way. There is nothing immoral about defending your family against those who would harm them.
Well said. It never ceases to amaze me when lefties think they can wipe out a part of human nature with a silly law. It's like trying to abolish Valentine's Day to keep people from falling in love. Or making car horns illegal to stop people from becoming angry.
You can't do it. Human beings will be as bad or as good as they have always been. The trick is to keep government from making it worse.
My great-grandpa Ruben came here from Armenia for a vacation, and then got a telegram saying his entire family had been killed in their sleep by Young Turks brigades on their family plantation. He never left America, and was actually an avid gun owner for the rest of his days.
Ruben's family made the mistake many Armenians made at first, and assumed that Turkey's war was a war between empires, not realizing the twentieth century would be the century of genocide, turning it into a war between peoples and religions. Turkey was morphing from a multi-ethnic empire into a nation state, and let their nationalist ideology turn apocalyptic against their Armenian and Greek subjects.
I don't see what your problem is, MovieBob. Obama and the Democrats may not be coming to take away our guns, but that doesn't mean a lot of them wouldn't love to. They can't take them away, because people like the author you've just been savaging raise the point about gun control's use for eroding people's liberties, and keep people thinking about it. Right now gun control's becoming more and more unpopular, because we keep on raising the point.
[...] Gifford raises some serious points at the screening of a documentary on genocide. Posted in General, arms vs. genocide « Skyscraper Climbing Contest Both [...]
“In this instance of the fire-arms, the Asiatic has been most improperly bracketed with the natives. The British Indian does not need any such restrictions as are imposed by the Bill on the natives regarding the carrying of fire-arms. The prominent race can remain so by preventing the native from arming himself. Is there a slightest vestige of justification for so preventing the British Indian?” Gandhi, The Indian Opinion, March 25, 1905
Never trust Gandhi as a source of supporting quotes. He always said something else that is utterly destructive to whatever point you might want to make.
If denouncing the British for restricting private ownership fo arms in India served his purposes, he would not shrink from doing so. That in no way stopped him from advocating denying them to South African blacks, who would later suffer under apartheid.
Wasn't there some problem in Japan, a few years back, when they were trying to ban *swords* because, since there is no private gun ownership there, the gangsters were just turning to old-school methods of killing? Heck, if only sharp sticks were available, five'll-get-ya-ten that most unfavorable sorts, especially in a porous-border country like the US (much harder to control what comes in than, say, an island nation like Japan) would still get guns or just use the sticks. Killin' is killin', and if bad guys want to do it, they'll do it.
The only thing that will change if private gun ownership is banned is that the government, in the hands if bad guys, might just be able to enforce bad things a lot more easily.
Although, I do agree with MovieBob on the point regarding conspiracy theories having the invisible protagonist (even Beck will flirt with this, though possibly out of the shortcomings of the medium more than anything else). I will disagree with MovieBob in that, as other posters have pointed out, the people who want to come and take your guns away *openly declare* their desire to do so (using court orders, the legislative process, etc.). In this instance, the invisible protagonist is not an issue.
the sinner,
Patrick
Right. The liberals might be more interested in "social issues than socialism," but gun control is a social issue that they never seem to get bored with.
The strange thing is, liberals are generally as suspicious of our own government as anyone (see behavior, liberal, 2001-2008), but they don't seem to believe the individual possession of firearms is connected to that in any way.
Put it like this: If BusHitler really had become a fascist dictator, what the fuck were they planning to do about it? Sing protest songs?
Carla Garapedian: making the Kardashian sisters look like good examples of responsible and intelligent women of Armenian descent.
How about California Senator Diane Feinstein, who said that it were her call, she would tell every private citizen to turn in their guns?
How about then-State Senator Barack Obama, who in 1998 stated in his own handwriting that there should be a ban on private ownership of handguns?
How about Bill Clinton, who passed the (since-expired) 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which defined "assault weapon" so vaguely as to make the government seizure of nearly any center-fire rifle with a clip legally justifiable?
How about Clinton's Solicitor General Seth Waxman, who replied with a ringing "Yes!" when asked if he believed that the Second Amendment applied only to the military, and not to private citizens?
The overwhelming majority of the 800,000 people killed in Rwanda were killed with machetes, axes, and clubs.
Whats ironic about all this, is that the Nazi's were left wingers too. This is one of the things which annoys me about Glenn Beck as well as all liberals. Beck buys into the progressive argument that the Nazi's are somehow "Right Wingers" even though he explicitly exposes the connections between the Nazi's and the American progressives in the pre war period. They arnt called National SOCIALISTS for no reason, and it showed. Hitler publicly wanted to abolish class differences, he kick started the German economy via massive state run enterprises, and he gladly kept in place the gigantic welfare system started under Bismarck. Throw in Hitlers continuation of the "Kulturekampf" against Christianity, and his social Darwinism, and you've got a hard core left winger who's only slightly right ward of the Communists.
The problem with the conventional wisdom is that it is conventional — which is to say that at this point in history it's become rigid, institutionalized, and desiccated, and thus lost most of its 'wisdom'.
I love how when Bob posts here, he acts quite calm, logical, and reasonable at the outset, and rarely drops to the level of crude insult — but by the time he's wrapping things up he can never quite resist the temptation to twist the knife.
Yes, you're absolutely right, Bob, my gun does talk to me.
Actually, Beck is quite aware the National Socialists are socialists. He has done several shows on that topic in the past, including reading points from their platform.
Precisely my point. Beck routinely shows why the Nazi's are socialists, but whenever he talks about the Nazi's on a political spectrum he stubbornly puts them on the right side, and that is detrimental to the entire Conservative, Capitalist, Libertarian movement.
I've watched many of his shows, and he usually has interesting and generally correct info and analysis about the Nazi's and their connections over here, but the simple truth is, when it comes to placing them on a political spectrum he is just flat out wrong.
I , like any fairly bright person, have been completely baffled as to why some other seemingly bright people just don't get it. I honestly have nearly been driven to choke someone out for being so oblivious to the logic that an armed society can thrive peacefully. Then the epiphany; Liberals simply cannot grasp the concept of an 'honest, law-abiding citizen'. Projection, maybe?…
Do you honestly believe a family handgun or for God sake a collection would do anything? Do you remember Waco? I believe in many things but not the 2TH amendment, I mean our boys were armed to the teeth and the US Government killed them by the thousands, I am reffering to Camp Douglas, America genocide. One we cannot talk about because they were Confederates the sourge of the world. Prove me wrong liberals, Hollywood, come on!
At the risk of sounding overly simplistic, I'll simply say more guns in the people's hands equals less crime. Simple, isn't it?
As opposed to Camp Sumpter/Andersonville?
It was a POW camp in the 19th century. For that matter, look up death rates of POWs from the Revolutionary War. Until the Geneva Conventions, surrender was basically just a slow form of suicide, and even afterwards was still hit and miss.
True, it is the Constitutions teeth and should be the final warning to us that the government has overstepped its authority. When they come for your guns, surrender them bullets first.
Never try to make sense of the "logic" of liberals. They speak out both sides of their a$$es.
They expect that if they surrender and side with their enemies they will be taken care of by them. They don't comprehend that they will die like the rest of us that they sell out.
I'd say it failed on purpose. They didn't want to explore or expose that side of the debate. They like keeping people ignorant (or at least wont do anything to teach people the facts if they don't agree with them).
Take for example the movie Shindlers List. The ending has the Jews waiting for the Nazis to kill them as they leave the factory. They stand there unarmed and ready to die. The fact was that Shindler had guns hidden for the Jews in his factory and armed them so they could defend themselves from the Nazi solders so they wouldn't be murdered. That is why they survived. Hollywood left that fact out of the movie.
I believe what they want is total control over those like us that they determin as uneducated and ignorant. We are looked at like that because we must be or we would see things from their point of view. They think they are more "enlightend" than we are because they "feel" more superior and know they are right. How else can you explain that they keep saying the majority of Americans agree with them, regardless of what polls show or what they hear with their own ears?
Pretty crazy or in modern internet speak "Logic Fail".
I know they are bat shit crazy but they do rock! I just ignore the stupidity and rock out to the music, not that they have made any recently.
And with this list please provide a reason why they are being censored.
I don't don't know about you, but I'd rather die in a gunfight than die in a prison.
Agreed. The question I've been asking myself for the last several years is why?
I'm originally from the left, so I've seen this from both sides. Think of me as a neutral third party who's not really neutral because he knows one side is nuts.
Most of what you state is true, but why does that happen? I really do believe we all agree on the vast majority of things, what puzzles me is why do we let politicians define that last 5% when they just use it to pit us against each other?
I think on the left it really does come from fear of the unknown. I was debating gun control with a liberal moon bat friend once, and I got him painted into a corner where he was forced to admit, he's not against freedom for himself and those he knows. What scares him is what people he doesn't know would do with their freedom.
That was very enlightening.
Right. Ignoring the well-documented and historically confirmed gun ownership issue, you act as though the murder of dozens of millions of people by Communist tyrants is a partisan issue. Nevermind how many people were killed for being dissenting LEFTISTS. Like the Georgian Stalinists Khruschev slaughtered by the thousands after his ascencion. And the Hungarian socialists who provided the greatnest number of corpses filling the killing ditches that spang up after 1956.
And given the fact that the White House has currently been authorizing extreme limitations on gun purchases and the like, I think you are off your rocker.
Except there are counter-examples.
good stuff… yah i am just more agro… i find trying to be cool about it doesnt work so well anymore… i'm like breitbart where the fight is on, we on the right have to get all alinsky right back. so whether they have good intentions or not… i'm sick n tired of it, so F It.. i'm fighting. …in the agro alinsky way… but with truth not deception or 'feelings'.
By all means, fight on. I certainly have no intention of backing down. Remember Sun Tzu: know your enemy.
Because I have insights into both sides of the political spectrum, and I like to think, I'm always looking at arguments that I don't think should even exist.
Do we remember Waco?
Yes.
Privately-owned guns won't keep the government from killing you, they only keep the government from killing you easily and quietly.
Yep, and this all starts by ending our 2nd Amendment and our Bill of Rights!
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/06/24/t...
The directors name tells everything.Another propaganda movie from an armenian.The truth is, there was an Armenian problem for the Turks created by the advance of the Russians, and also there was a population with an anti-Turkish sentiment in the Ottoman Empire who sought independence, and they overtly sympathized with the Russians advancing from the Caucasus. Also, there were Armenian bands, the Armenians bragged about their heroic exploits in resistance, and the Turks had trouble to maintain order under the prevailing war conditions. For the Turks it was necessary to take the punitive and preventive measure against a hostile population in a region threatened by foreign invasion. For the Armenians it was liberating their land. However, both parties agree that the repression was geographically limited; for example, those measures did not affect the Armenians who lived in the other parts of the Ottoman Empire. http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/faq
1.The facts that Armenians took up arms against their own government, conducted violent raids, rebellions, terrorism, and treason, coupled with territorial demands, caused many Turkish dead and casualties. Most non-partisan historians characterize this tragic episode correctly as “inter-communal warfare conducted by Christian and Muslim irregular forces” against a backdrop of a brutally raging world war. Turks were only defending their home like any citizen anywhere would do.
Even their first pm says so in his confessions;
2.‘… The war with us was inevitable… We had not done all that was necessary for us to have done to evade war. We ought to have used peaceful language with the Turks…We had no information about the real strength of the Turks and relied on ours. This was the fundamental error. We were not afraid of war because we thought we could win… Our army was well fed and well armed and [clothed] but it did not fight. The troops were constantly retreating and deserting their positions ; they threw away their arms and dispersed in the villages. …In spite of the fact that the Armenians had better material and better support, their armies lost. ….. the advancing Turks fought only against the regular soldiers ; they did not carry the battle to the civilian sector. ….the Turkish soldiers were well-disciplined and that there had not been any massacres…’
Source: The 1923 Bucharest Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni, the first PM of the Independent Armenian Republic, published by the Armenian Information Service Suite 7D, 471 Park Ave., New York 22 – 1955.
…………………………………from my cold dead hands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's not the point of getting mad enough to commit murder, it's the defending yourself part that legitimate gun owners are worried about.
There are always 'buts'. Speaking specifically of the US, more guns in the hands of responsible people has historically resulted in a lower crime rate.
— On Thu, 6/24/10, IntenseDebate Notifications <notifications@intensedebatemail.com> wrote:
Yeah, clearly government induced genocide is the result of private firearm ownership.
http://www.nightchicken.com
.
They will take a future violent event, and use it to create pressure on citizens to voluntarily turn in their guns. They have done this effectively in the UK and Europe – considering it's history I find that astounding considering their history. They will use the media to make progressive pronouncements so that neighbors will turn on neighbors, and they will whittle away until "they" create a circumstance that to be a law-abiding gun owner one must be able to walk with one foot tied to their left ear. The rest is academic. That is why I am a lifetime member of the NRA, for all of their perceived missteps, they do the right thing in the end.
You mean like the one you just inserted?
"reponsible"
Yes, responsible people can own guns with statistically irrelevant negative consequences.
How do you propose we identify them?
Do you acknowledge a legitimate interest in excluding "irresponsible" people from owning firearms?
<DIV>The definition of 'responsible' aside, history will bear me out when I say when one side cannot defend itself, tyranny in some formprevails. That said, if it takes firearms to keepdespotism in check, so be it. As for 'legitimate interest in exclusion', the tragic irony there is thatmeasures to exclude the so-called 'irresponsible'(define that)generally result in unintendedconsequences, like tyranny. Theres a balance out there, but I'll stick to my guns for now, no pun intended.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>
— On Fri, 6/25/10, IntenseDebate Notifications <notifications@intensedebatemail.com> wrote:
</DIV>
Muslims have also been guilty of acts of genocide against disarmed Christians, as happened recently when Muslims massacred 528 Nigerian Christians in three villages. Interestingly, some of the people killed were shot, indicating that some Muslims violated the gun control laws, but most were hacked to death with machetes. Gun control does not prevent acts of genocide, whose perpetrators often turn to other weapons such as machetes and fire. But it does prevent victims from defending themselves effectively. See my blog, Islam Martyrs Nigerian Christians Because They Have No Guns: http://wp.me/pBFlW-53
Websites we think you should visit…
[...]although websites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they are actually worth a go through, so have a look[...]……
You should check this out……
[...] Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a few unrelated data, nevertheless really worth taking a look, whoa did one learn about Mid East has got more problerms as well [...]………
Best Links 2011…
Good info. Lucky me I reach on your website by accident, I bookmarked it….
Best Links 2011…
hey there and thank you for your information – I have definitely picked up something new from right here. I did however expertise several technical points using this website, since I experienced to reload the site lots of times previous to I could get …
Best Links 2011…
Hiya, I’m really glad I’ve found this information. Nowadays bloggers publish just about gossips and net and this is actually annoying. A good website with interesting content, this is what I need. Thanks for keeping this web site, I’ll be visiting i…
Potato And Leek Soup Metropolis occupation. I something difficult on knifelike blogs everyday. It leave ever be invigorating to interpret accumulation off their writers and implementation a young something from their store. I’d select to use many wit…
Metropolis occupation. I something difficult on knifelike blogs everyday. It leave ever be invigorating to interpret accumulation off their writers and implementation a young something from their store. I’d select to use many with all the content in my…
Memory Foam Mattress Reviews It’s a opportune shame you don’t comprise a elasticity money add! I’d definitely utilise money for this fantastic webpage! That i assume for the quantify beingness i’ll be satisfied bookmarking together with including an …
It’s a opportune shame you don’t comprise a elasticity money add! I’d definitely utilise money for this fantastic webpage! That i assume for the quantify beingness i’ll be satisfied bookmarking together with including an individual’s Treat that gift my…
herbal remedies Excellent blog here! Also your site loads up fast! What web host are you using? Can I get your affiliate link to your host? I wish my site loaded up as fast as yours lol…
Excellent blog here! Also your site loads up fast! What web host are you using? Can I get your affiliate link to your host? I wish my site loaded up as fast as yours lol…
You must be logged in to post a comment.