22 thoughts on “Really? I Mean, Really?

  1. Stefan Jovanovich August 2, 2014 / 5:34 am

    The Stars and Bars continues to be offensive to people still mad at the Confederates and ashamed of American slavery and the Federal courts’ turning a blind eye to the 14th Amendment. But the logic of equating firearm ownership with individual liberty is inescapable; the first liberty that freedmen were deprived of was their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Nazis didn’t come for the Jews first; they came for every German’s private guns.

      • Mark August 2, 2014 / 10:51 am

        Hitler did not begin the gun control regime, and that means squat as far as the actual argument. Public debates on historical matters aren’t very satisfying to those who love history because they simplify and overgeneralize grossly. The Salon article is no better. But the point often stands nonetheless. If you want a history of the matter with academic rigor, read ” Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State” by Stephen Halbrook. Here is the author’s quick summary. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365103/how-nazis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook

        The Salon article debunks some things but goes entirely squishy in confidently determining that nothing done on gun control would have made any difference. Paternal liberalism at its finest. Such predictions hide the grossest immorality. It’s defending the sorts of thing as saying “Hey that guy would have died anyway even if I had stopped to check on his condition”. It’s the worse form of moral reasoning there is, and yet Libs do it over and over and over to justify the policies they want. You can’t prove a negative, so saying there is no way to prove something is pointless.

        Just look at the Polish ghetto question. The Jews used the guns they had to buy time, and it did buy a lot of time. What they didn’t count on was the Russians would stop the war and nudge and wink at the Germans and wait for them to be slaughtered. How was this a failure of people using guns to effectively protect themselves against a hostile power? It isn’t. It was a classic case of an evil regime (under Stalin) who threw them under the bus that no one expected because they didn’t fully appreciate how evil he was yet. If Stalin had done what any non-evil person would do, and everyone at the time expected, he would have continued rolling up the Germans and driven past the Poles who had no quarrel with them.

        The Salon piece merely says “All the Salon 20 Germans were killed, while some 13,000 Jews were massacred. The remaining 50,000 who survived were promptly sent off to concentration camps.” That is about the most reductive, self-serving, and stupid analysis I’ve ever heard of the uprising. It’s amazing.

        The real lesson of German gun laws, and those that know the actual history of it know this, is that they began as well-intentioned laws by do gooders trying to help, that were eventually used by those who came to power later to suppress politically their opponents.

    • Goad Gatsby August 2, 2014 / 12:18 pm

      Wasn’t the Stars and Bars against the 14th amendment?

    • Adam August 2, 2014 / 2:27 pm

      If your “stars and bars” reference is about the Battle flag in the pic above, educate yourself…that’s not the “stars and bars”

  2. OhioGuy August 2, 2014 / 7:31 am

    How much better could they have made their point with a Gadsden flag. Much different connotations. But these folks are not really into connotative meanings.

    • Ryan Q. August 2, 2014 / 9:26 am

      But even the connotation that colonists were close to ‘wearing chains’ is false. As Samuel Johnson said in the most perfect soundbite to come out of England during the Revolution, “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty amongst the drivers of negroes?”

      • OhioGuy August 2, 2014 / 11:13 am

        Yes, but with the Gadsden flag the term “wear chains” could have been taken figuratively. Again, this kind of subtlety is not the strong suit of the neo-Confederate gang. With the CFB it really becomes much less open to a figurative interpretation and is offensive because that flag was flown in its day by those who literally put African Americans in chains and/or those who supported a society based on racial inequality. But, since many of these folks believe that tens of thousands of slaves enlisted in the Confederate Army to defend their homeland against the Yankee hordes, the whole concept that this bumper sticker is offensive probably goes right over their heads. And,that is the crux of the problem. These folks still believe the Lost Cause mythology, which can be summarized thusly: Lee was the son God, Jubal Early was a latter day manifestation of St. Peter, and Longstreet was Judas. 😉

        • OhioGuy August 2, 2014 / 11:25 am

          That’s CBF, not CFB. Perhaps that’s a Freudian slip (original meaning) in that we are now talking about a Confederated Flag Battle. More likely it was just my dyslexia manifesting itself. :-/

      • Mark August 2, 2014 / 11:15 am

        Ryan, it seems to me the Johnson quote shows that the hyperbole in question was of a piece with hyperbole of the American revolution. The negotiations of the Colonists with the British over reconciliation terms always foundered over British insistence that the citizens of the Colonies had to swear allegiance to the crown.

        Was a declaration of British sovereignty over each individual being in chains? They thought so. Whether you think so now or not from your living room doesn’t really matter that much. They historical point is the non-loyalist Colonists saw it that way. Let me be a peacemaker here and suggest we not get so zealous to attack these folks that we can’t charitably see some truth in the historical parallels through the hyperbole, then as now. Some say the Revolution wasn’t a just war because being a British subject was better than many had it around the world at the time. But that is entirely beside the point. Likewise now if we disagree with these folks we should do it on the individual merits, not broad sweeping attacks that even the most honorable of our ancestors couldn’t bear if we’re honest.

        • Ryan Q. August 2, 2014 / 5:22 pm

          I agree with everything you say; I was just posting some thoughts from a Brit of the time and whose thoughts I always found easily juxtaposed for either conflict.

  3. Sandi Saunders August 2, 2014 / 8:20 am

    If you believe you can live in a society and not abide by their rules, yes you are likely to die in chains or by a gun and displaying that flag will clinch the deal.

  4. Jimmy Dick August 2, 2014 / 8:54 am

    Notice how they have to appropriate historical symbols to lend legitimacy to their views. In this case they use a symbol of racism and hatred flown by people who denied a group of people their freedom strictly based upon their race. The fact that they do not see how this is so naturally leads you to question their intelligence. They are catering to a specific demographic while at the same time alienating other demographics through ignorance.

  5. Lyle Smith August 2, 2014 / 10:44 am

    If John Brown had to lived to see the Confederacy, this could have been a good buggy sticker.

  6. Adam August 2, 2014 / 2:32 pm

    The flag in the “bumper sticker” isn’t the “Stars and Bars” …You would think you rocket scientists would know better…I have to admit, it’s very entertaining reading your comments! What planet are you folks from?

  7. C. Meyer August 2, 2014 / 3:05 pm

    This one always made me laugh…

  8. Stefan Jovanovich August 3, 2014 / 11:58 am

    Thank you, Mike. In my case the distance between particular knowledge and general ignorance seems to widen with each passing year. My Alabama relatives and I (none of whom are rocket scientists) can only offer the common excuse; the Stars and Bars are the flag we associate with the Confederacy, not the knock-off of the Austro-Hungarian imperial banner.

    On the question of Hitler, Jews and gun control, I do have particular knowledge, and what I wrote was true. The Nazis came for everyone’s weapons (except their own) before they came for the Jews’ firearms. 1938 German Weapons Act was passed 6 months before the particular anti-Jewish prohibitions that were adopted by regulation after Kristallknacht. The Weapons Act was not a “softening” or “liberalization” of the German gun laws; it was the first serious effort made by the Nazis to restrict gun ownership by requiring licensing with the local police for ownership of both handguns and ammunition. The anti-Jewish regulations that immediately followed were adopted to close what was, in effect, the long gun loophole. Rifles and shotguns had been exempted by the 1938 Act so, technically, Jews who owned them did not have to submit to the approval of the local police by getting a license. The gun laws in the South after Grant left office followed the same pattern; gun ownership was licensed and no person of color could ever acquire a license.

    It is true that the Weapons Act was, on its face, less restrictive than the Weimar government’s 1919 law which was an outright prohibition against private ownership of firearms. Compared to the pre-Civil war codes which denied slaves any rights of property at all, the post Civil-War gun regulations in the South also seem more “gun-friendly”. But, as everyone understood in both times and place, those more permissive laws were not to be applied to people who were not good Nazis or were officially classified as Negroes. What the Nazis did was revive the 1919 prohibition and give it real teeth – for everyone except themselves. .

  9. The other Susan August 3, 2014 / 3:05 pm

    Maybe it’s intended to be a union recruitment poster. :p

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s