This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

Hey, kids!  How many things can YOU find wrong in this picture?
I frequently do not engage with my "republican" / "conservative" friends - for the simple reason that I abhor pissing contests and bullying and bald-faced lying.  It's called 'pick your battles', and it's frequently the only thing that keeps me from beating my head into the sidewalk.

Not that all that is rare, y'know - it's that everybody else is ashamed and embarrassed to be caught in and chastised for such behavior...but not these...persons.  Consequently, I spend very little time arguing with them on Facebook, as it's a lot like juggling napalm:  nothing affects them, and I end up covered in burns.

Then out of the blue, a perfect moment arose:  a strongly 'conservative-aligned' friend (but a real friend nonetheless) posted this pic (above)...join me below the romantically inclined clefs for the set up - and, of course, the smackdown (I hope...)


You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

Like I said, my friend is a real friend, and I've known her for some 15 years.  In recent years, she has made the acquaintance of one of my wife's friends - who, near as I can tell, is not a real friend to anyone.  Where my friend is passionate and "balls to the wall" (okay, actually, "tits") and willing to engage, he is distant, prickly, snobbish, and rarely advances any conversation beyond the lamest of old jokes and caustic, drive-by digs;  he seems quite interesting until one tries to get closer, when one finds that he's only offering the most superficial interactions.  After MANY attempts to establish any kind of worthwhile interaction with the man, I gave up on him several years ago.  Thanks to his political views, ALL his conversation on anything political is not only shallow, but nasty in tone and dishonest in feel.

I steer clear of him for the same reason I don't groom badgers.  Her, OTOH, I have gotten thru to before, and I'll keep trying.  Which brings me to her FB page, and that ridiculous "meme".  After an unusually long contemplation, I decided I had to dig in and expose it to her:  whatever else she may be, she is scrupulously honest.

So after refreshing myself on my inter-war German history, I put on the hazmat suit & dug in.

First, Hitler didn't say it, in 1935 or any other year.  The Treaty of Versailles imposed much harsh on Germany following WWI, AND DISARMING THE POPULACE WAS ONE OF THEM. Weimar Republic. PRE-Hitler. The ONLY reason.

Making up fake new 'Hitlerisms' for CURRENT political purposes because Hitler is "good theater" is, well..dishonest, vicious, and ENTIRELY worthy of Hitler and his propaganda ministry.

Another fact: Hitler RELAXED GUN RESTRICTIONS in '38, during the run-up to the war he was 'forced' into by 'THEM'. In other words, he did the exact opposite of the bogus claim now making the rounds (aka this shared post).

The meme-ifier should be ashamed of himself for passing this thing around. He should just call Obama a n....r and get it out of his system. I know you're not stupid, darling, and I know you're fiercely proud of our nation, but hating the imaginary liberals for made-up nonsense makes all Americans look bad.

I bring this to your attention because I know you are fiercely independent and scrupulously honest, and because I know you would never knowingly promote a lie.

So far, so good:  short-ish, sweet-ish, and directly to the point.  But that's not important now.

While her response was slow in coming, it was genuinely heartfelt, engaged, and not at all wing-nutty.  But what's this?  Our other player takes the stage, his condescending slink lacking only decent mustachios to twirl...and with a flourish of his cape (yes, he actually DOES wear a cape IRL) he begins:

No, that wasn't the scope of my point. The matter of disarming a population by the government is generally done out of fear that the population will overthrow thst government. The Weimar gun laws were done for that reason by an essentially leftist Socialist regime especially to lessen the liklihood of a National Socialist coup (think Beerhall Putsch) being attempted a second time. Hitler was a very popular leader irrespective of his methods and the policies enacted by the Reichstag underscore the fact that he wasn't worried about a mass uprising against his policies.
...and after I admonish him for his false equation of the Weimar govt. with "OMG_SOSHUL_IZZUMS!1!!" he retorts.
Ok...if you want to digress into semantics rather than facts. Let's call Weimar a 'Liberal Democracy'. Also the 'pack of lies' that I quoted was nothing more than a recitation of the laws as they developed. I try not to editorialize.
I have rarely seen someone set themselves up so perfectly.  Not only could I not resist the temptation, but this seemed almost a sign...neon, and it said, "GAME ON".

Our text for today:

Having said that, allow me to take exception to what you DID say:

Yesterday, @ 10:17 AM, you posted:
"The matter of disarming a population by the government is generally done out of fear that the population will overthrow thst government. The Weimar gun laws were done for that reason by an essentially leftist Socialist regime especially to lessen the liklihood of a National Socialist coup (think Beerhall Putsch) being attempted a second time....."

This is not true. Not a word of it. The law that you're talking about (that is, the only German law passed between the end of WW1 and the end of WW2 that does what the bogus Hitler "quote" celebrates), "Regulations on Weapons Ownership", was passed and enacted in October, 1919 - not 1935, and not in fear of the NSDAP, which did not exist at that time (hell, hitler hadn't made it home from the front by then!). It was NOT done out of fear of a popular overthrow: it was one of the terms of the Versailles Treaty, as I mentioned before. It may be that such things are "generally" enacted out of fear (although that is an extraordinary claim...and as such, it requires extraordinary evidence); however, THIS was not so done.

Continuing, you present the equally unsupported assertion that the Regulations were enacted "by an essentially leftist Socialist regime". While there are certainly semantic quibbles that could be made about this, I think it more useful to consider the substance of your applied meaning. First, though, may I remind that the Versailles Treaty was ENORMOUSLY unpopular all over Germany, and across all parties from the extremes to the center: The Weimar government was in considerably MORE danger from the populace as a consequence of the Versailles enactments - not less!

It is true (though unasserted) that the lead party in the formation of the Second Reich were called the Social Democrats. It is also true (also unasserted) that "Social Democratic" parties proliferated in capitalist, self-governing Europe following the catastrophe that was Hitler's war. It is NOT true that "Social Democratic Party" meant "leftist Socialist regime" in 1919, which is your implication. THAT meaning has been manufactured since the demise of the John Birch Society, but not, apparently, before that. By the time Reagan left the White House, that unilateral redefinition had been cemented in place (along with the meaningless canard, "socialist regime"), so while you may very well think that now, it didn't mean that in 1919, and without evidence to the contrary, it's HIGHLY arguable that it has EVER meant that in fact.

You conclude by saying this so-called 'regime' acted "especially to lessen the liklihood of a National Socialist coup (think Beerhall Putsch) being attempted a second time." And as I noted previously, the historical record is clear: there WAS no Nazi Party in 1919, and so the government COULD NOT have been afraid IN 1919 of something that would not happen until November, 1923.

Allow me to repeat: since the Nazi Party did not exist until the year after the 1919 Regulations, and since the FIRST (and only) putsch wasn't until 3 YEARS after that, this is not merely WRONG, it's NOT POSSIBLE. So, aside from your introductory sentence in that paragraph ("No, that wasn't the scope of my point" - which I'm taking on faith), there is, sorry to say, not one true thing in that entire comment. I cannot help but wonder WHO set you up with this magpie's nest of tinsel and garbage? As we are both PROUD men, I am sure you agree that it is better to have the painful truth in prophylactic dosage, than to unknowingly play the fool.
"Those are all mistakes, Otto - I looked them up!"

Oh - the pizza resistance? 11 hours ago (time is now 19:11, mark):
"Also the 'pack lies' that I quoted was nothing more than a recitation of the laws as they developed. I try not to editorialize."

Well. That quote was most-if-not-all of the Nazi's DE-Regulation act from 1938 (NOT "the lawS as THEY developed", as you say, but just the one (and I know this because I JUST FINISHED READING THE DAMNED THING)). The only conclusion I can come to is that you've been very effectively lied to - and by someone who cares nothing at all for your credibility. So: who has done this thing to you? I cannot believe that you KNEW your comments were not, ARE NOT TRUE - yet I find it equally impossible to believe that you could have been so gulled / misled / 'conditioned' that you can no longer tell the difference between a fact-based political argument and full-on Munchausen's...I am shocked, and speechless. If it were me who'd been used this way (and, in the past, it has been me), I'd be livid with rage at the perpetrators. I suspect the bitter truth to be that the Klan/Bircher axis has been far more effective than I'd imagined - and for a far longer period than I'd imagined.

At this stage, I actually anticipate losing my friend over this - and I don't just mean on FB.  She has shown an extremely prickly sense of what is and is not 'appropriate treatment / respect...yet she is completely indifferent to the meaty and substantial insults she metes out off-handedly;  however, I'm pretty much done with "letting others have their own opinions" when their opinions are provably false, deliberately belittling or humiliating...or when their behavior qualifies as bullying.


All in all, not as satisfying as I'd hoped: mostly a general bristling at the notion that I'd take it upon myself to FACT-CHECK something SHE saw fit to share.  It has taken me DAYS, and it has been quite draining....and really, is there anything more 'small beer' than Facebook?  I have at least not stuffed it, and instead have spoken out.

I do hope you'll pardon my prideful display here, as my real purpose is to bleach out and detoxify that stinking 'Hitler/Guns' trash going around.  I think it would be a WONDERFUL thing if we could come up with solid, fact-based responses to nut-wing talking points.My friends - my fellow Kossacks, I implore you to TAKE OUT THAT TRASH!  And if reading this gives you ammunition or ideas or whatever to that end, my sharing this has been entirely worthwhile.

I'm also hoping to learn how to write a diary that folks will read and recommend, so any and all pointers and 'structural' advice will be gratefully received.

Thank you for your patience.

Extended (Optional)

Your Email has been sent.