Skip to content

John Rocker peddles “the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened if the Jews had guns” nonsense

Jan 15, 2013, 3:31 PM EDT

John Rocker

Here’s your quarterly reminder that former baseball person John Rocker is a sick and/or crazy person.

Rocker has devoted his latest column on that right wing website he writes for to gun rights stuff. Which is fine in and of itself. Gun rights are a hot topic these days and there are a lot of reasonable positions one can take on the subject even when vehemently disagreeing with someone else who is also offering an alternative reasonable take.

Unfortunately, Rocker is not offering a reasonable take. He’s peddling second-hand talking points from crazy people:

“Absolute certainties are a rare thing in this life, but one I think can be collectively agreed upon is the undeniable fact that the Holocaust would have never taken place had the Jewish citizenry of Hitler’s Germany had the right to bear arms and defended themselves with those arms.”

Despite this being a popular talking point by some on the right wing, this is demonstrably false. Gun ownership was never widespread in Germany, even when there were few if any controls on people’s rights to own firearms. To suggest, then, that the Holocaust was made possible by the lack of armed Jews is pure nonsense on the facts alone.

More significantly, Rocker’s nonsense here downplays if not ignores the fact that it was not some tangential gun policy that led to the Holocaust, but the actual policy of implementing the Holocaust which led to the Holocaust. Jews were not targets of opportunity by the Nazis, seized upon because, hey look, they’re unarmed. They were intentionally and systematically targeted for persecution and extermination by the government, which had millions of troops under its command, armed with state-of-the-art weaponry. To suggest that some “Red Dawn”-style uprising would have prevented the Nazis from committing their crimes against humanity is pure, facile revenge fantasy, the likes of which can only be espoused by a person who has no experience with persecution.

Or maybe it’s worse. Perhaps Rocker and his ilk really don’t think that armed Jews would have stopped the Nazis and, instead, are cynically using the Holocaust as a prop in the latest act of political theater. Perhaps they view the Holocaust as a useful and emotionally-laden example with which to guilt, shame or manipulate their opponents in a modern day political dustup.

If so, it’s more despicable than it is ignorant. Way more despicable than anything the younger Rocker told Jeff Pearlman in that interview that got him into trouble back in the 90s.

(link via Deadspin)

176 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. drunkenhooliganism - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:37 PM

    I can’t really get inside the head of a soldier that would round up people based on their religion, but I think I’d be a lot less willing to enter a house and round up someone if there was a chance they’d be waiting in a corner ready to shoot me in the face.

    • Kevin S. - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:43 PM

      What if you were part of an armored platoon with all kinds of support behind you? Somehow, I wouldn’t be too worried about pistols and shotguns.

      • drunkenhooliganism - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:46 PM

        I would be if I was the first one going through the door. The one searching the upstairs bedrooms. I also wasn’t living in Germany at the time, but I didn’t know that they sent whole armored platoons down every block and to every house that had Jews in it.

      • evan5 - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:07 PM

        “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” – Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II

      • blackandbluedivision - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:17 PM

        They didn’t have armed platoons back then. You’re losing your own argument. If there were no strict gun laws (like you suggest in your argument). Why would you send one or two people door to door to round up people unarmed? “Knock. Knock. Can you please come out and play?!” The point is the Nazi’s outnumbered the Jews. Guns or not. It was going to happen. They weren’t going to stop because of a few guns. They were just going to take stronger precautions. IN FACT. More might have been killed. They weren’t just going to stop at your door and say, “Oh, shhhhhh. He has a gun. Let’s go to the next guy.” If they ran into opposition. They were going to go back and get help and come back and do what it takes to get the job done. Orders are orders.

      • blackandbluedivision - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:18 PM

        I didn’t mean to say “They didn’t have armed platoons back then.” I meant to say they wouldn’t use them back then like they would if they were armed.

      • evan5 - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:34 PM

        It’s funny to me that people would thumb down a historically significant and relevant quote. Anyway…

        How well did the mighty United States military do in Vietnam against a bunch of inferior soldiers? Guerrilla warfare negates things like superior arms, and even training.

        Not to mention, you’re talking about American soldiers fighting the American populace? That’s a dubious proposition, at best. Not even the US government can convince soldiers to kill their own, on their own land like that.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:21 PM

        Evan, perhaps you should google “bonus army” and also, a lot of labor people from the 19th century would argue with you on that.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:21 PM

        Oh, and the Mormons too…and Indians…

      • evan5 - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:40 PM

        The scale of the bonus army and what I, and others, are talking about is far different. In isolated incidents of small number (relatively speaking), it’s a different story. If the government tried to order the military to kill billions of it’s own people, I don’t think it would happen.

      • evan5 - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:41 PM

        OH, and GO TIGERS!

      • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:51 PM

        Go Tigers.

      • drewsylvania - Jan 15, 2013 at 6:12 PM

        ” If the government tried to order the military to kill billions of it’s own people, I don’t think it would happen.”

        And if there were a charismatic fanatic who had spent the previous decade demonizing said population as the root of all evil?

        If we fail to remember the mistakes of history, we are doomed to repeat them.

    • shawndc04 - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:45 PM

      I call BS. If the soldiers fought the Russian and US as they did in WWII, do you really think that they would refrain from entering a civilian’s house to round up or, if necessary to them, kill him/her? Jesus.

    • deadeyedesign23 - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:46 PM

      Those same soldiers found a way onto battle fields where there were most certainly people waiting around the corner to shoot them in the face,

      • drunkenhooliganism - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:01 PM

        Shawn and Deadeye, you guys bring up a good point. And those guys surely feared getting shot. And many of them did. Then their armies retreated and eventually they lost the war.

      • blackandbluedivision - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:20 PM

        that was against trained armed forces and advanced weaponry. (tanks planes boats, etc) Not civilians with pistols.

    • rmcd13 - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:01 PM

      That’s why there are no soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq. Oh wait…

    • Roger Moore - Jan 15, 2013 at 6:48 PM

      You’d probably change your mind if you knew that you could be executed for refusing. Most armies take a very dim view of soldiers who don’t follow orders to go into danger, and the Nazis were no exception. When the choice is between rounding up armed civilians and risking being shot or refusing and being certain of it, most soldiers will follow orders.

  2. skids003 - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM

    While I think we agree technically Craig, he’s just overboard as usual.

    An armed person is a citizen, an unarmed one a subject. Craig, me and you probably disagree on the 2nd amendment, but as far as the Holocaust goes, I agree with you, this wouldn’t have stopped it. Luckily, we as citizenry of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms. With that comes responsibilty.

    • Kevin S. - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:46 PM

      Oh dear lord, not even an assault rifle is going to mean a damned thing if the United States government truly turned the full power of its arsenal on the citizenry. Get over your Rambo fantasies, you wouldn’t stand a chance if the government actually wanted to make you a subject.

      • skids003 - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:53 PM

        No fantasies Kevin. Who said anything about assault rifles? Because our forefathers had the foresight, I have the right to defend my family as I choose, not as you choose. Don’t call me when someone breaks in your house.

      • cur68 - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:28 PM

        Skids has a point. It’d likely turn into be a guerrilla war: citizens vs. Armed forces. Guerrilla wars rarely work out well for the armed forces especially when the guerrillas are comprised of the families of the Armed Forces.

        One of the first thing the fascists did in Germany was disarm the citizens. This was quite clever of them. It rendered a guerrilla war pretty moot: the citizens had nothing to fight with, hence effective resistance was pretty poor. It’d be a different story in the USA (and Canada): lots of people own guns. Even liberals (like me). Plenty of us hippy assholes would rather shoot it out with the fascists than see our families rounded up and slaughtered.

      • Kevin S. - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:50 PM

        Except the Nazis didn’t disarm the citizenry, the Weimar Republic did. The Nazis actually relaxed gun restrictions on most of the citizens (though obviously not persecuted classes).

        Skids, you were talking about being subjects. As in government oppression. No guns, not even assault rifles, would stop the United States government from oppressing its citizens. Only the consciences of the soldiers turned upon their own countrymen would prevent that. And don’t call me when the gun you own harms you or somebody in your family, which is forty-three times more likely to happen than it being used to defend you.

      • cur68 - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:54 PM

        It hardly matters who disarmed them, Kevin. They hadn’t the means to defend themselves against illegal search, seizure and detainment by the government. The government for its part, realized that, worked hard and effectively to demonize and marginalize an easily identifiable group, and a large part of the population went along with it. The disarming was key to making the rest of it easier.

      • skids003 - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:59 PM

        Sorry, Kevin, cur is right. It did make it much easier for the Nazis.

        Also, I don’t know where you got your numbers from, probably the Bradies or Mayor Bloomberg, but that is totally made up. Plus, I and my family know how to safely handle a gun. So again, when your dwelling is broken into, don’t call me to come help.

      • cur68 - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:13 PM

        Easy does it gents. No need to have a shooting war on the issue. Have a look at the following:

        http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

        One thing we can take away from it: gun ownership isn’t bumping off people anywhere near as much as car ownership. Long before you worry about more gun control, you might want to do better with traffic.

        Anyhow, the issue is complex, likely state by state, and isn’t helped at all by individuals on both sides shouting nonsense at each other.

        For my part, I believe having a sound working knowledge of guns is a good idea and owning one SHOULD involve a waiting period, background checks, and education.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:46 PM

        No offense, skids, but there was no such thing as a police force as you know it back in the colonial days. People had to defend themselves. They didn’t really have a choice.

      • skids003 - Jan 16, 2013 at 7:39 AM

        True, histrio, but when trouble strikes and seconds count, the police are only minutes away. No offense to the police, that’s just the reality of it.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:46 PM

      Actually, I’m pretty pro-Second Amendment. You can’t pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights you support. I don’t own guns, but I grew up with friends and relatives who were hunters. I don’t have a problem with gun ownership and think a lot of what passes for pro-gun control arguments these days is often misguided and emotionally-induced.

      • klbader - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:52 PM

        I don’t see why you can’t pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights you want to support. I agree that you can’t pick and choose the enforcement of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, but that’s totally different. I will go on record and say that I love the first amendment, don’t care about the third amendment, and would like to get rid of the second amendment.

      • shawndc04 - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:54 PM

        Tell that to the parents in Newtown.

      • skids003 - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:56 PM

        Thanks Craig, you are truly an unusual liberal. I agree with you completely, a lot of pro gun control arguments these days are knee jerk reactions. While I hate what happened in Newtown, knee jerk reactions are not the answer. More laws for criminals to ignore won’t fix this problem.

        Again, gun owners must be responsible citizens. To own is to be responsible.

      • Craig Calcaterra - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:04 PM

        klbader: That’s fine. As long as, when one debates gun laws, one acknowledges that to do fairly dramatic things with respect to guns, one has to amend the Constitution, not merely decide on a given policy.

        I think sensible regulation is fine and reasonable. But gun ownership is protected in the Constitution, and we should proceed with the full acceptance of that before proceeding at all.

      • kirkvanhouten - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:15 PM

        “Actually, I’m pretty pro-Second Amendment. You can’t pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights you support.”

        Of course you can. The founding father’s brilliant in so many ways, were dead fucking wrong on this one. They weren’t Gods. They got the occasional thing wrong (in my opinion, which I’m allowed to openly express because they *nailed* that one).

        Also, I totally favor the quartering of British soldiers. Limey’s gotta sleep, don’t they?

      • klbader - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:29 PM

        Craig, I completely agree. I think the 2nd amendment still allows for the existence of reasonable, narrowly tailored laws regulating gun ownership. To do more would require amending the constitution. I would support such an amendment, but that’s my opinion, not the law, and the government isn’t in the business of legislating based on my opinion.

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:22 PM

        ” I would support such an amendment, but that’s my opinion, not the law, and the government isn’t in the business of legislating based on my opinion.”

        If the government doesn’t legislate based on your opinion than you need to find a more popular church.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 7:34 PM

        Your right to free speech isn’t unlimited. Your right to assemble is not unrestricted. Your right to a jury trial is apparently no longer guaranteed. Etc. Staters should accept that ultimately, there will be restrictions on their right to own guns. We are just behind on that one. Eventually, it’ll catch up with the others and there will be limits set.

    • klbader - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:46 PM

      I know that, thanks to the 2nd amendment, there is no way that the government could possibly intern our citizens like the Nazis did to the Jews during WWII. Well, except for the fact that Japanese-American citizens, who had the right to keep and bear arms, were interned by the U.S. government. I guess they should have fought back, perhaps started a second civil war or something.

      • skids003 - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:58 PM

        You can’t pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you don’t like. That is totally asinine. A mess beyond belief if the governemnt treated it as such. Which is art of the problem these days.

      • evan5 - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:03 PM

        You’re talking about a small ethnic group against a massive army consisting of soldiers by-and-large not of the same ethnicity, during a time of war against that same ethnic group’s homeland when espionage ran rampant. The parallels you are trying to draw do not exist.

      • flosox - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:14 PM

        Was just going to echo that point…

        Its a circular argument; adding variables to a specific situation would most likely change an approach which most likely would alter the outcome. Would the Nazi’s have approached genocide knowing their targets were armed? Maybe. Maybe Not. Would the Jews have won the battle if they were heavily armed? Maybe. Maybe Not. If I went back in time and killed a mosquito, would Earth cease to exist? Maybe. Maybe Not.

        I’ll I can say is that i’m glad I live in a country that allows me to carry that equalizing “variable.” Whether or not I need an Oozie is a different argument.

      • stlouis1baseball - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:11 PM

        klbader:
        “I don’t see why you can’t pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights you want to support. I agree that you can’t pick and choose the enforcement of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, but that’s totally different. I will go on record and say that I love the first amendment, don’t care about the third amendment, and would like to get rid of the second amendment.”

        You really can’t feel this way. If so…I am embarassed for you. I mean that sincerely. I am embarassed for you. I just don’t know what is more embarassing. Your comments in regards to the amendments or you comment about picking and choosing the bill of rights.
        I am thinking your post in it’s entirety.

        Note to self.

      • klbader - Jan 15, 2013 at 6:38 PM

        stlouis1baseball, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I am sure that you, like every American, supports all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights equally. I am sure that you hold the 1st amendment in the same high regard as the 10th.

        The point of my comment is that individuals are capable of “supporting” the different amendments differently. To me, I value the freedom of speech more than I value the right to bear arms. And so, to me, I support the 1st amendment more than I do the 2nd.

        At the same time, I think that both amendments should be enforced equally. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the 2nd amendment. The right to free speech is enshrined in the 1st amendment. Both should be subject to reasonable restraint. The 1st amendment is subject to such restraints, so the 2nd should be as well.

        I appreciate you embarrassment for me, but I think I will be all right.

      • stlouis1baseball - Jan 16, 2013 at 3:32 PM

        kl: I appreciate your thougtful response. Please know I mean that.
        I somewhat understand where you are coming from. Not that I agree…but I at least understand it.

        My shock (and irritation really)…lies with you specifically saying you would like to get rid of the 2nd amendment. This is precisely what those “right wing nuts” are referring to when they say those on the left (and the government in particular) want to take all the guns.
        Again…you said you would like to get rid of the 2nd amendment.
        Quite frankly…that’s insulting.

    • vanmorrissey - Jan 15, 2013 at 6:09 PM

      Uh, I think armed, unarmed does not matter, we’re all citizens, let’s get that straight, not subjects if unarmed. Just because you choose to be unarmed does not mean you are a subject under a tyrannical dominion, which is what you are inferring by that statement.

      • stlouis1baseball - Jan 16, 2013 at 3:34 PM

        Van: You took his post literally. Figuratively…an unarmed citizen would very much be a subject. i.e….zero defense.

  3. tfbuckfutter - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:39 PM

    His followup article will be arguing that the only gun control laws that make sense involve making it illegal for Jews and minorities to own guns.

  4. Mark - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:39 PM

    As someone who lost relatives in the Holocaust I always find it disgusting when people make a comparison to the Holocaust. Because it’s always a horrible and misguided attempt that shows the true ignorance of the speaker.

    And for the record, there were Jews who had access to weapons and fought against the Nazi’s.

    • tfbuckfutter - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:49 PM

      Bat-wielding Eli Roth for one.

  5. highpowered350 - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:40 PM

    Rocker For President !!!

    • jimeejohnson - Jan 16, 2013 at 1:02 PM

      Another narrow minded twit? Mitt the twit was more than enough.

  6. tfbuckfutter - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:40 PM

    If only Branch Davidian had been armed they never would have been overrun by the government either.

    • Old Gator - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:52 PM

      Heh, that compound was bristling with…oh. Sarcasm font, eh?

    • moogro - Jan 16, 2013 at 5:43 PM

      Although not a follower of hseroK divaD, she’s a devoted Branch Davidian.

  7. braddavery - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:42 PM

    “Left wing sucks!”

    “No, right wings sucks!”

    “No, left wing sucks!”

    “No, right wing sucks!”

    So sick of this nonsense.

    • sdelmonte - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:44 PM

      Elmer season!

      • chadjones27 - Jan 15, 2013 at 6:04 PM

        Love it!

    • Old Gator - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:53 PM

      I’m sick of it too. They shit on you from under their tailfeathers anyway.

  8. jlovenotjlo - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:45 PM

    Although I’m very pro-gun (I live where Red Dawn was set, everyone has guns in the mountains haha) I fully agree with your take on sensationalism used by both sides of the issue to bring about a bunch of stupid emotions as stir the pot. Guaranteeing no Holocaust if German Jews had a stockpile of handguns and hunting rifles is ridiculous.

    However I must fact check as I was under the impression that German citizens under the Third Reich were thrown in jail for gun possession. Maybe I’m wrong. Anyway, a good take overall on this issue.

    • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 6:48 PM

      Please, fact check it.

      • jlovenotjlo - Jan 15, 2013 at 8:03 PM

        I’m finding conflicting evidence – Edward abbey says they were outlawed, others say otherwise. I hate reading on my iPhone so.. Can someone else do it?

      • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 8:09 PM

        http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=flr

      • misterchainbluelightning - Jan 16, 2013 at 1:39 AM

        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.
        Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
        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.

        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 Führer 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.

        §2
        Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

        §3
        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.

        §4
        Whoever wilfully 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.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 16, 2013 at 8:01 AM

        It’s important to differentiate there between the law for Jewish citizens there and non-Jewish ones — and also to bear in mind the difference between this legislation and what came before. Also, that isn’t really a translation of the laws — it’s a summary. Just fyi.

      • misterchainbluelightning - Jan 16, 2013 at 1:20 PM

        Here another FYI, you facts have been checked, the OP was absolutely correct and you’re welcome.

        Yammering buffoon

      • historiophiliac - Jan 16, 2013 at 1:28 PM

        I think that was for me. I think I’ve been downgraded to “yammering buffoon.” How depressing. I really enjoyed being a “prick” a lot better. (Also, I’d respond if I had any idea what you were talking about.)

  9. dondada10 - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:45 PM

    Maybe the Jewish citizenry wasn’t armed, but there are other examples of citizenships that armed themselves and fought against their oppressor. It doesn’t word. It expedites death.

    • drunkenhooliganism - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:54 PM

      Good thing we can all know what’s best for Jews of that era and decide for them that they should just accept concentration camps instead of fighting back.

  10. natsattack - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:46 PM

    He’s off his Rocker!

  11. csndrew - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:50 PM

    Totally irrelevant stat of the day:

    Career postseason ERA, all-time leaders:

    Babe Ruth: 0.00 ERA
    John Rocker: 0.00 ERA

  12. number42is1 - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:51 PM

    anyone remember the episode of southpark where the owner of the chinese palce builds a wall to keep the “damn monogrians” out? yea.. well either does Rocker.

  13. qcubed3 - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:56 PM

    This makes so much sense, because all it took was guns to stop the Nazis! Look at all of those places that had guns where the Nazis couldn’t impose themselves: Poland, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Yugoslavia, Denmark, North Africa, Norway, the Baltic States and more! Those places had no Nazis in them whatsoever because guns . . . ?

    And look at this gem, the Battle of the Warsaw Ghetto, where Jews with guns totally killed Nazis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

    Except for the fact that the Jew’s death rate was almost several hundred to one, Rocker’s argument makes a ton of sense.

    • youknowwhatsgoodforshoulderpain - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:18 PM

      The kill ratio was nearly 1000 to 1, actually, and here’s why:

      Hanna Krall, who interviewed the only surviving uprising commander, Marek Edelman (from the left-wing Jewish Combat Organization, Żydowska Organizacja Bojowa, ŻOB), stated that the ŻOB had 220 fighters; and each was armed with a handgun, grenades, and Molotov cocktails. His organization had three rifles in each area, as well as two land mines and one submachine gun in the whole Ghetto.

      Other than the 220 armed combatants, the ghetto barely had any armaments at all. The nazis simply blew the ghetto to pieces at a distance, hence their death toll of less than 20. They stated that at the end of the fighting, there were ZERO buildings still standing.

      • youknowwhatsgoodforshoulderpain - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:20 PM

        Later data suggests there were more than 300 nazis killed (a 1:50 ratio), but who really knows?

      • qcubed3 - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:37 PM

        It was a losing ratio was pretty much my point.

      • cur68 - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:47 PM

        If that was the USA (or Canada) they’d all have been armed in the ghetto (in Canada that would be a “Ghetto, eh”) and that includes the means to lob artillery back at the military (anyone who didn’t see Mythbusters make a duct tape cannon needs to cue that one up). Then, when hostilities commenced it would have been, to quote my fellow beaver fan, “SURPRISE, BITCHES! (eh)”.

        Historically, its never really the will to fight that’s been the problem. Jared Diamond’s excellent “Guns, Germs, & Steel” explains the effectives of an armed minority completely dominating an unarmed majority in the Aztecs vs Spanish from 1519. Armed beats unarmed every time.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:39 PM

        For the record, more Indians died from disease than being bested by Europeans in battle…and both the French and the English required alliances with the Indians to maintain control in the colonies. The Iroquois Confederacy was a much stronger fighting force.

        Also, there’s a difference between having the arsenal the US Army has and individual gun ownership. The Civil War pretty much put an end to being able to protect yourself in battle w/ your own equipment.

      • buggieowens - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:52 PM

        That is a simplistic rendition of Diamond’s argument, Cur. And you are mixing up historical events. Your example is pertinent when discussing the Spanish and the Incas (Diamond also notes, as HP points out, the major impact of disease on the Inca Empire). As for the Aztecs, you omit the massive amount of indigenous support Cortes had.

        One last thing for all you ignorant posters. Apostrophes do not make words plural. It is Nazis, not Nazi’s!

      • cur68 - Jan 15, 2013 at 6:15 PM

        buggie, if I had all day to summarize that book, then fine, I would. I don’t so you get the simplistic. The overall point is that its pretty hard for unarmed people to fight off a heavily armed people.

      • buggieowens - Jan 15, 2013 at 6:25 PM

        point taken Cur. But remember, if you are going to reference a historical work, don’t be surprised when others know the book better than you do.

      • cur68 - Jan 15, 2013 at 6:47 PM

        On this website? Hell, I reference EXPECTING the better informed to get it righter than me. Just another avenue for learning.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 7:08 PM

        Well, then, in actuality, despite alliances with the Shawnee and Cherokee, the Spanish and later Anglos didn’t succeed at beating the Comanche until a majority of them had died from disease and environmental changes — and even then, the army beat them by taking out their supplies. Similarly, 3/4 of the Hawai’ian population died from disease after white contact/settlement and it didn’t take much — it was a small Marines presence — to take over the government after the population took such a hit. There’s more examples, but generally speaking, giving Indians blankets infected with smallpox succeeded more than having guns (especially after the French started arming their allies — both sides ended up with guns in the end).

  14. historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 3:59 PM

    OMG, just walk away. Don’t even read the comments. Somebody probably said some crazy wrong crap about the founders. You’re just gonna rant. Walk away.

    • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:34 PM

      dammit!

  15. alexo0 - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:16 PM

    “…the likes of which can only be espoused by a person who has no experience with persecution.”

    Except that Rocker and other like-minded folk believe they are being persecuted by the government, and feel they’ll need their guns to fight back one day.

    “Perhaps they view the Holocaust as a useful and emotionally-laden example with which to guilt, shame or manipulate their opponents in a modern day political dustup.”

    It’s the same way Obama is continually compared to Hitler. Suddenly everyone is a WWII buff.

  16. spudchukar - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:18 PM

    Think Rocker is nuts? Here is what the Chairman for the upcoming “Gun Appreciation Day”, Larry Ward, had to say yesterday. He contends that MLK, whose birthday we also celebrate this weekend, would favor gun rights, and that slavery might not have occurred in the US, if slaves would have had the right to bear arms.

    He went on to say that American Citizens should also have the right to Nuclear Weapons, as long as the U.S. government also has them. Sure, a thoughtful, informed response to incidents like Sandy Hook, Aurora and Columbine should be measured, but how does one expect that to happen when viewpoints like this are championed?

    • stlouis1baseball - Jan 16, 2013 at 3:38 PM

      Fair enough spudchukar. I would also add that view point isn’t all inclusive.
      Just yesterday someone said they would like to get rid of the 2nd amendment all together.
      What was that measured response you were referring too? Or can we not talk about the other sides sheeple?

  17. kirkvanhouten - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:20 PM

    Just so we’re clear:

    -I believe the my right to own guns relatively free of restrictions is my right as an American.
    -I believe gun violence in the United States is largely driven by outside factors and implementing gun contol would do little to stop it and inhibit these rights

    See, these are what we call *valid arguments*. We actually have to debate you on those! But somewhere along the lines, the hardcore pro-gunnies seem to constantly throw out crazy arguments like this that are demonstrably not true. Debating the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle is a hell of a lot more appealing and helpful than debating whether or not the Soviet Union would have been a capitalist utopia had Stalin handed out Glocks to every citizen.

    • skids003 - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:33 PM

      kirk,the hard core antigunnies come up with some crazy shit too. There are people on both sides too far out there, that’s what makes it hard to work this out.

      • kirkvanhouten - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:36 PM

        “There are people on both sides too far out there”

        Yeah, but let’s not pretend that there are equal number of crazies on either side with equal power. The Brady Campaign’s agenda is pretty wildly different than the NRA’s “arm the schools” campaign.

        It’s like when people defended the “Obama was born in Kenya” congressman by saying “Well, there’s a bunch of 9/11 deniers who are liberal!”. True, but they don’t make up the leadership of the Democratic party, and the only one I can think of in Congress was ousted by her own party in her re-election primary.

      • skids003 - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:52 PM

        kirk, the Brady’s want to disarm law abiding citizens. How will that stop crime? Will the criminals turn theirs in? They sure as hell didn’t in UK, or Australia. I think they are further out there than the NRA.

      • Kevin S. - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:00 PM

        Brady’s policy recommendations: http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1560/

        Please show me where they recommend disarming law-abiding citizens.

      • cur68 - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:16 PM

        skids, don’t over state. Its part of the problem when people take this sort of thing to extremes. Brady recommendation are rather easy to live with. They aren’t that far of Canadian ones.

      • APBA Guy - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:35 PM

        Skids, you might have missed something. The rate of gun violence in the UK and Australia is a fraction of what it is in the US, about 10% of ours. The gun law in Australia was modified to reduce mass murders which it has done successfully so far, since the law eliminating private unregistered sales was implemented there have been no mass murders using guns in Australia since 1996. In the previous 10 years there had been 11. People in Australia can still own guns. They are required to register each weapon to an owner. Gun violence isn’t eliminated, but it is reduced, and the severity of incidents is drastically reduced.

      • bh192012 - Jan 15, 2013 at 8:07 PM

        @Kevin S. I could live with most of those, however this

        “Limit the availability of military-style weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines that are designed for mass killing.”

        If that were in any way true, then cops wouldn’t use them. We wouldn’t have cops armed so they could “mass kill?” Military-style weapons are not only for “mass killing.” They’re really useful for defending yourself. I believe lawful, non-insane citizens should have access to any weapon system police have access to.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 8:18 PM

        I am also opposed to the militarization of local police forces — which was a governmental response to the civil rights movement. I would favor limiting access to these weapons for the police as well — especially for use against American citizens.

    • cur68 - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:50 PM

      Nicely put, Kirk. That’s pretty much my view as well.

  18. youknowwhatsgoodforshoulderpain - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:24 PM

    “It’s the same way Obama is continually compared to Hitler. Suddenly everyone is a WWII buff.”

    So liberals are allowed to compare the president to Hitler (George W. Bush), but when conservatives do it, only THEN is it ridiculous? Truth is. it’s ALWAYS ridiculous. Both sides of the political landscape are filled with large numbers of embiciles and sheep who listen to the embiciles.

    • stlouis1baseball - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:23 PM

      YKWGFSP:
      “So liberals are allowed to compare the president to Hitler (George W. Bush), but when conservatives do it, only THEN is it ridiculous?”

      It’s a never ending battle. It’s the up in arms mentality of today’s society. Rage for the sake of raging. If something bothers me…you need to stop. It is ridiculous. You are a moron. I am a scholar. You don’t have a clue. Let me show you. However…if something I am doing offends you then you are just a right wing…blow hard…birther nut. I can call “W”…”W.” I can also call him an idiot. But under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are you to ever call our feerless leader “Barry” or refer to him as Muslim. Don’t call him Obama. He is the President!
      In fact…don’t even bring up his Hawaii high school graduation either.
      To do so borders on blatant racism!
      RAGE!

      • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:32 PM

        Seriously, you can’t tell the difference between calling Bush “W” (which he put on his election bumper stickers) and falsely calling the president a Muslim? You have some very false equivalencies going on there.

      • gosport474 - Jan 16, 2013 at 12:14 AM

        Yes I am so glad the morally superior left never compared Bush to Hitler or made movies about assassinating him.

        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0853096/

        http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/bstein80/moveonorgs-ad-comparing-bush-to-hitler

        http://www.earthhopenetwork.net/Nazi_Bush.htm

      • historiophiliac - Jan 16, 2013 at 10:52 AM

        Why do you call Obama “Barry”?

    • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:29 PM

      embiciles! Winning!

      • cur68 - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:38 PM

        You’re having a very nice time with all of this, aren’t you? Tell me, is this the equivalent of me watching the PEDs debate or are you in a special happy place all your own?

      • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:43 PM

        I’m trying to contain myself and, honestly, I’m waiting for someone to break out some seriously crazy sh!t that makes me lose it because I’m very sensitive about that militia crap.

      • cur68 - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:52 PM

        It’ll happen, don’t you worry. This is the sort of debate, and Rocker’s the sort of guy, that’ll attract the crazies like a beaver attracts wood thieving porcupines.

        I’ve long thought that a US civil war in modern times wouldn’t be as one sided as people think. Too much likelihood of attacking your own family members: the will of the armed forces would be seriously compromised. Given that it would probably take a major breakdown in civil law and order for things to come to that, I think what we’re really looking at here is more along the lines of Zombie Apocalypse causing the collapse of certain civil institutions.

        Bottom line? Do your cardio.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 6:00 PM

        Cur, that’s exactly what the Civil War was the first time. It would be no different. I guess people think they’ll face an even more unfair advantage with a different outcome. It boggles the mind.

        Trust me when I tell you that I will remind people about this crazy crap come April 19th.

      • cur68 - Jan 15, 2013 at 6:19 PM

        Well, since I confine details of my war matters to 1812, I’ll leave the field of battle to you on this one, ‘phlliac. That being said, I still think doing your cardio re. The Zombie Apocalypse would be a good idea. You’ll be a prime target for consumption, too. They do eat brains, y’know. Rocker on the other hand would survive. Hell, he’d probably take war brides.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 7:36 PM

        Well, I didn’t do very good restraining myself. :( I guess I got some repenting to do, if’n I’m gonna be Zombie food…

      • stlouis1baseball - Jan 16, 2013 at 9:47 AM

        Of course I can tell the difference Philiac. That portion of the comment was made in jest.
        The point is…people can’t have it both ways. They routinely slam ‘W’…did so when he was in office on a regular basis. Except perhaps immediately after 9/11. They were on his jock then. Patriotism was abound for about 5 minutes or so.
        Anywho…these same people who routinely bashed ‘W’ get all up in arms when anyone even so much as hints at criticizing Barry.
        Disclaimer: Not a huge ‘W’ fan. Just also not a huge fan of hypocrisy.

  19. lazlosother - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:26 PM

    Personally I’d have thought Rocker would be a holocaust denier. I recognize his argument is sadly twisted, but he at least seems aware that there was a holocaust.

  20. 18thstreet - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:27 PM

    You know who had guns? Poland. Poland had guns.

    Germany had bigger, better guns.

  21. kirkvanhouten - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:32 PM

    Hey, I have a question:

    Since when did being known mostly for being a racist shithead land you a job as a conservative columnist? Did the editors are World Net Daily just look at him and say “Well, if he is xenophobic and hates queers, that must mean he’d make an excellent columnist!”

    As far as I can tell, Rocker never had anything to say on the subject of politics ever except for being racist and homophobic? Why would any institution, even as far out their as World Net Daily, associate their publication with someone who is known for nothing else? What else am I supposed to think of them except for being homophobic, race-baiting assholes?

    • fearlessleader - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:38 PM

      When Rocker’s string of bigoted remarks hit the media, he became a hero of white supremacist groups and other fringe far-right douchebags (there’s an interesting piece here: http://observer.com/2000/02/john-rocker-is-the-latest-hero-for-the-webs-farright/). WingNutDaily took note and put him to work. Yep, draw your own conclusions….

    • 18thstreet - Jan 16, 2013 at 6:57 AM

      Would any of us remember Ted Nugent if he wasn’t an asshole?

      • stlouis1baseball - Jan 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

        Hahaha! Point taken 18th. And well played I might add.
        I will also add you would remember him for his musical talents.
        Not a huge fan of his music. But I do recognize there are those that love his music.
        You would also remember him or his hunting prowess.
        Dude can shoot. Great eyesite. World class skills with a firearm, bow, etc…
        But Yeah…he’s a crazy sonofabitch though. He can certainly be an asshole at times.
        Musicians are a quirky bunch.

  22. fearlessleader - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:34 PM

    Considering John Rocker’s history of anti-Semitic slurs, I can’t shake the feeling that he probably sounded a little disappointed when he said it.

    Asshole.

  23. professormaddog31 - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:44 PM

    Oh barf. He was an embarrassment to the Braves when he wore the uniform, and he’s still one now.

  24. drewsylvania - Jan 15, 2013 at 6:27 PM

    A) Being a s***head will almost always get you a forum these days, because it brings $$$. Everyone likes $$$ and is willing to throw away their integrity for it.
    B) You can and should pick what you like out of the Constitution. But you can’t deny someone’s rights that are offered under it.
    C) Hitler wanted Jews killed–it wasn’t going to matter whether they had small arms.
    D) The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as guns-to-protect-against-the-government is pointless at best. No amount of citizens with small arms can compete with, say, a predator drone.

    • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 7:22 PM

      Isn’t it bizarre how casually people toss around treason these days? It’s stunning.

      • stlouis1baseball - Jan 16, 2013 at 11:08 AM

        It’s a nickname. Much like “W.” It’s what he went by in High School. All of his friends call him that. We are cool like that Philiac.
        Again though…the point of my post was sarcastically mocking the hypocrisy of the left with their hateful, vile, dissrespectful posts in response to anything remotely close to a conservative side of the argument. I think you could (and did) easily see that sarcasm. You just chose one little tidbit that was said in jest. But back to the hypocrisy of the left.
        It didn’t use to be his way. In fact, it very much used to the be the opposite. It has completely turned around. I will state it again…so much as even hinting at criticizing our illustrious leader puts you in a position of being labeled a racist nut job. So much for the live and let live…open frame of mind they so often hypocritically tout.

      • jimeejohnson - Jan 16, 2013 at 1:16 PM

        This comment is not directed at St.Louis1Baseball or any of the fair minded, intelligent Conservatives: Far right wing NUTs ostracized NJ Governor Christie because he dared to serve his constituents of color and Muslim descent. These neo-con bigots are the epitome of stupid, and give the entire right wing the NUT label. Note to right wing NUTs: the color of a person’s skin does not determine their worth, and just because you might be some kind of unsuccessful trailer trash doesn’t give you the right to hateful rhetoric to make yourself feel better.

      • skids003 - Jan 16, 2013 at 3:36 PM

        Only left wing nuts have the right to attack with hateful speech, right?

  25. oilrod - Jan 15, 2013 at 7:24 PM

    The writer of this article is as stupid as he claims Rocker to be. He must be a left wing fly by posting his stupid rant in a sport setting. Take some time Go to JPFO.ORG watch the video No Guns for Jews on You tube or No guns for Negro’s. Get a grip dude and post what you know instead of your political leftist tripe. Rocker is very intelligent regarding this and you are off your Rocker.

    • jimeejohnson - Jan 16, 2013 at 1:17 PM

      You rendered your post meaningless when referring to a right wing bigot like Rocker as intelligent.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Pitching vs. history in NL wild card game
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Jeter (3443)
  2. C. Kershaw (2626)
  3. R. Martin (2617)
  4. A. Rodriguez (2195)
  5. D. Gordon (2019)
  1. J. Altuve (1974)
  2. J. Hamilton (1961)
  3. I. Suzuki (1761)
  4. D. Ortiz (1747)
  5. E. Volquez (1733)