- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Hitler Probably Hated Pearls, Too


Second Amendment awesomeness from a young scholar at my alma mater: [2]

Arielle Sutton, agriculture business junior, lives in a quaint apartment off campus. In her room, she has a pink vanity chest of drawers; green and pink throw pillows; and a Smith and Wesson M&P 22-claiber rifle under her bed.

Sutton is a member of the newly formed, unofficial Students for Concealed Carried Weapons club and considers the ownership of her rifle an unalienable right.

“Owning a gun is a privilege,” Sutton said. “Everyone should have the right to bear arms, but not everyone can. Some countries don’t allow their citizens to do so.”

… Sutton said governments that enforce gun control tend to become oppressive.

“When Hitler took office, he registered everyone’s guns,” Sutton said.

And their L.L. Bean duck boots! You have been warned.

47 Comments (Open | Close)

47 Comments To "Hitler Probably Hated Pearls, Too"

#1 Comment By Glaivester On January 17, 2013 @ 7:13 pm

You know, I did two and a half months of seasonal work at L.L. Bean a few years back.

#2 Comment By BenSix On January 17, 2013 @ 7:16 pm

That’s a really creepy photo. I think APFSDS ammunition could well be useful for national defence but I do not want a picture of somebody having a nice cuddle with it.

#3 Comment By Charles Cosimano On January 17, 2013 @ 7:26 pm

If I were 40 years younger I would be in love.

#4 Comment By DS On January 17, 2013 @ 7:28 pm

.22 caliber? It might as well have flowers coming out of the barrel. Or a Hello Kitty sticker on the stock.

#5 Comment By EngineerScotty On January 17, 2013 @ 7:32 pm

An excellent excuse to link to this video:

#6 Comment By KateLE On January 17, 2013 @ 7:33 pm

Someone should clue her in that a tyranical government will come for your books long before they’ll come for your guns. Doesn’t parrot quite as well from talk radio, though. That’s besides the fact that she could fill her quaint apartment to the rafters with M22s and her government would still effortlessly outgun her. As a supporter gun rights, this stuff makes me wince.

#7 Comment By Jane On January 17, 2013 @ 7:40 pm

Too bad people aren’t more concerned with things like hard work, education, and modesty.

#8 Comment By Thomas Andrews On January 17, 2013 @ 7:48 pm

I hunt.
I love the sport of shooting.
This picture just disgusts me.
This is so not furthering the discussion.

[Note from Rod: :::eye roll::: — RD]

#9 Comment By Consequences On January 17, 2013 @ 7:57 pm

I’m thinking the only place she could conceal that particular weapon is in her hair.

#10 Comment By William Dalton On January 17, 2013 @ 8:04 pm

Gary North posted a timely column, reminding us that it was the Weimar Republic that banned private gun ownership in Germany, which allowed the Nazis and Communists, who ignored the law, to form their militia and begin taking their battle to the streets. The moral is that it is not so much the totalitarian governments that curtail gun ownership, but the democratic governments which do so, providing the opening for a dictator to take over.


#11 Comment By MH – Secular Misanthropist On January 17, 2013 @ 8:05 pm

I hope you guys realize that New Englanders don’t actually wear duck boots. Up to now I didn’t think anyone did.

#12 Comment By EngineerScotty On January 17, 2013 @ 8:19 pm

Someone call John McCain’s office. His 2016 running mate has been found.

#13 Comment By James C. On January 17, 2013 @ 8:26 pm

MH is right. I’d rather step into a knee-deep slush puddle on one of Boston’s cobblestone streets than get caught wearing a pair of those things.

#14 Comment By Cliff On January 17, 2013 @ 8:49 pm

She “considers the ownership of her rifle an unalienable right” in one paragraph but says that “Owning a gun is a privilege” in the next. Which is it, a right or a privilege? There’s a big difference.

#15 Comment By W.E.B. Dupree On January 17, 2013 @ 8:49 pm

First they came for the Southern sorority girls, and I did not speak out… because really, just look at this photo.

#16 Comment By Swissarmybazooka On January 17, 2013 @ 8:57 pm

Typo after .22 there in the blog. On my way to get some American eagle rounds for my buckmaster.

#17 Comment By surly On January 17, 2013 @ 9:29 pm

What Cliff said. Individual gun ownership SHOULD be a privilege, similar to getting a driver’s license. Unfortunately the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

#18 Comment By Dan On January 17, 2013 @ 9:31 pm

This is no doubt based on her wide international experience. Yes, it’s so oppressive walking the streets of Tokyo or any other major city in Japan. . . . where one doesn’t need to worry about a drive-by shooting.

#19 Comment By Noah172 On January 17, 2013 @ 9:35 pm

A gun that is too big to conceal.

Hideous boots that are functional only in swamps or heavy rains so you can pose as an outdoorsperson.

Hiring Tammy Faye Bakker as your stylist.

Gratuitous — and, as commenter William Dalton points out, inaccurate — Godwin-violating Hitler reference.

Contradiction between “right” and “privilege” of firearms ownership.

Another great reminder why I frequent AmCon and not the “respectable” “conservative” outlets.

#20 Comment By Richard M On January 17, 2013 @ 9:37 pm

“Too bad people aren’t more concerned with things like hard work, education, and modesty.”

She looks modest and well educated enough to me. I can’t speak to how hard she works.

#21 Comment By Floridan On January 17, 2013 @ 9:39 pm

Young scholar? ““Good citizens with arms can change things. I’m not sure what the answers are, but there should be more effort for people who have a cry for help.””

Well, maybe at LSU.

[Note from Rod: Do you not recognize sarcasm when you read it? — RD]

#22 Comment By Richard M On January 17, 2013 @ 9:41 pm

“That’s besides the fact that she could fill her quaint apartment to the rafters with M22s and her government would still effortlessly outgun her. As a supporter gun rights, this stuff makes me wince.”

Well, that’s why the Second Amendment speaks of a “well-regulated militia.” It’s easy for the federal government to overcome any individual citizen, no matter how well armed he or she is – and that was as true of 1790 as it is of 2012.

But when a thousand such people come together in their community, it gets a little harder. And when there are over 100 million Americans so armed . . . the only way to keep and hold such ground is by splitting lots and lots of atoms. Which sort of defeats the whole point of the thing.

#23 Comment By Mark On January 17, 2013 @ 9:43 pm

The Weimar Republic was done in mainly by deep economic problems (depression & hyperinflation), a weak constitution, and political instability. Lack of private ownership of guns likely had little, if anything, to do with it. The Nazi Party didn’t gain its foothold in Germany by armed force. The German people voted them into power because the Republic had lost all credibility with the majority of Germans. Hitler’s “taking the battle to the streets” resulted in the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch. After his release from prison, Hitler focused on legal methods of gaining power.

I support 2nd Amendment rights, mainly on the grounds of personal protection against criminals. Protection against the rise of tyrannical government contrary to the will of the people is a weak argument. It’s unlikely that a tyrant wouldn’t enjoy popular support, at least initially. Such arguments likely ring hollow with the majority of Americans, and may actually weaken the case for 2nd Amendment rights.

#24 Comment By Jake Lukas On January 17, 2013 @ 9:50 pm


I wouldn’t be quick to dismiss a .22, especially a semi-auto. Yeah, it won’t take down a guy in body armor. Sure, it’s not ideal and won’t have much stopping power. I’d even suggest that she switch to a nice, easy to handle .380. But [4]. If she’s comfortable shooting it, and can put the bullet on target, then she’s better off with it than something that would cause her to flinch at every trigger pull. For self-defense, I submit that a gun with too large a caliber, or a gun a user is otherwise unable to handle, is worse than useless.

#25 Comment By Rambler88 On January 17, 2013 @ 9:51 pm

Yes to most of the above, but, really–consider the usual alternative found in colleges, and count your blessings. I’ll take stupid over crazy-decadent any day.

#26 Comment By J On January 17, 2013 @ 10:40 pm

I’d grant her a B.A. with Honors in Stupid immediately.

#27 Comment By Charles Cosimano On January 17, 2013 @ 11:06 pm

Never underestimate a .22. For years it was the assassination weapon of choice for the Chicago mafia.

#28 Comment By pinkjohn On January 17, 2013 @ 11:07 pm

Good God. We’re so doomed!

#29 Comment By William Dalton On January 17, 2013 @ 11:18 pm


You are generally correct in your understanding of why the Weimar Republic failed to meet the expectations of the
German public. But the question is why it was replaced with a totalitarian state instead of another democratic government. The answer, to my mind, is that the Nazis and the Communists were the only parties who, by their ability to arm and parade militia (who fought battles in the streets of Berlin long after the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch in Munich), demonstrated to the German people they had the ability to make the fundamental changes they felt were called for, particularly with respect to removing the thumb of foreign control imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. By the time of the 1932 elections most Germans, whatever their own political predilections, were convinced that their only alternatives were the Nazis and the Communists, and most who supported the Nazi state, whether or not they initially voted for them, did so in order to avoid the “greater evil ” of communism.

In today’s America we have a similar situation. A majority of the people go to the polls believing that we have no alternatives besides the two major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, and many vote for the one they believe to be the “lesser of two evils”. Were the American people to be substantially disarmed, and economic calamities continue to multiply and oppress them, the arrival of political alternatives which feature armed militia and promises to overthrow the country’s financial oppressors (which today, as in the 1930’s, might variously be identified as capitalists or Jews) might well appeal to a population which no longer feels it can defend itself, or even be in charge of its own lives. It could very well herald the end of the ancien regime.

Once he was elected, by the way, Hitler did away with his Nazi militia, the “SA”, and replaced them with his own elite army, the “SS”, a state institution. He actually encouraged the German people to get guns and practice firing them – he did have in mind the building of an Army that could march through much of Europe, after all, something that couldn’t be accomplished without a German public ready and equipped to fight. But they would an army formed under his control – not a popular militia.

#30 Comment By jon s On January 18, 2013 @ 12:29 am

Look, Mandy and Senator Blutarski had a girl.

#31 Comment By Nick K. On January 18, 2013 @ 2:40 am

WTF, why doesn’t she have a real gun?

#32 Comment By Jane On January 18, 2013 @ 4:16 am

My comments weren’t directed at this young woman. They were directed at what I think is gun culture’s wholesale misapprehension of the challenges facing the United States, which is too much to detail in a comment.

She looks responsible and intelligent. I’m no longer a practicing Christian, but I have always felt that God put me on earth to be kind to others, not to wound them. If she saw my comment and was offended by it, I would like to apologize.

#33 Comment By Public Defender On January 18, 2013 @ 4:50 am

Hitler may have registered guns, but he also opposed gay rights.

Comparing you opponents to Hitler is a cheap stunt that should embarass anyone who would otherwise support your point.

#34 Comment By k On January 18, 2013 @ 6:06 am

All I know is I thought that was a picture of a woman in her early 40’s, and now when I look closer I still can’t see anything else.

#35 Comment By Floridan On January 18, 2013 @ 6:17 am

Note from Rod: Do you not recognize sarcasm when you read it? — RD

Apparently not

#36 Comment By elvisd On January 18, 2013 @ 6:18 am

When people start Weimer mongering when looking for historical precedents for their argument, my eyes usually roll. There’s so many other times and places for study, but dropping the H bomb is easy, I guess.

Rather than looking for totalitarian takeovers, look to the more common social, economic, and moral breakdown as a future to fear.

Duckheads are for housewives to put on for the annual dove “hunt” that the insurance salesman puts on each year.

#37 Comment By JonF On January 18, 2013 @ 7:00 am

Re: The moral is that it is not so much the totalitarian governments that curtail gun ownership, but the democratic governments which do so, providing the opening for a dictator to take over.

Which has happened how many times? Once? That’s the logic the keeps people from flying on airplanes (because rare crashes do happen) when instead they are more likely to be killed in a car crash.
Now, I’ve said before that, yes, I believe that the 2nd Amendment establishes a right to individual weapon ownership. But it also allows that such ownership shall be “well-regulated”, and I have no problem with sensible regulations and limitations on gun ownership.
And can someone tell me why Godwin’s Law does not seem to apply to gun-worshippers?

#38 Comment By JohnE_o On January 18, 2013 @ 7:48 am

As others have said above – don’t knock the .22, especially in a repeating rifle.

Shot placement is much more important than caliber size – and the .22 with its low recoil allows the shooter to keep sights on her target whereas the recoil from a more powerful round would result in a delay while she re-acquires her target.

DS: are you familiar with kalashnikitty? If not, do an image search on that term. It is just the most darling thing since the pink crickett rifle

#39 Comment By DS On January 18, 2013 @ 10:21 am

Special thanks to JohnE_o for the Kalashnikitty link. I had no idea.

On the subject of the .22, yes, it can be deadly with a single well-aimed shot. Also with a few dozen badly aimed ones.

In my arsenal, I have a beloved .22, a deer rifle and a shotgun. I’ll reach for the .22 in self-defense after I’ve emptied the other two and thrown the guns and my shoes at the intruder.

#40 Comment By M_Young On January 18, 2013 @ 10:25 am

[5] is priceless. 30 second LOL.

#41 Comment By RB On January 18, 2013 @ 11:26 am

Hey, don’t knock the boots. The manliest man I know–river guide, big game hunter, horse-wrassler–wears those boots.

#42 Comment By Fred On January 18, 2013 @ 12:28 pm

Josh Marshall has an excellent response to the worldview of this young lady:


#43 Comment By Church Lady On January 18, 2013 @ 2:33 pm

Hell, even I wear those boots. They’re especially good in heavy rain and snow.

#44 Comment By JohnE_o On January 18, 2013 @ 5:14 pm

Glad you guys liked Kalashnikitty – I laughed out loud too when I first saw her!

Josh Marshall has an excellent response to the worldview of this young lady:

You must have read a different response than what was linked to, Fred. All I saw was Mr. Marshall saying that he doesn’t like guns and would prefer not to be around people who carry guns.

#45 Comment By William Dalton On January 19, 2013 @ 12:30 am

“Hitler may have registered guns, but he also opposed gay rights.”

In my mother’s family in 1930’s Germany there were two cousins who were the “black sheep” you avoided talking about – one was homosexual and the other was a Nazi. Of course, if you read much American propaganda during the war period and afterwards, you might have expected the two young men to be one and the same.

I agree with you that comparisons to Hitler are abused, and most frequently by those who wish to justify their crimes by those who warn against incipient Nazism – starting with those who allege that every accommodation to those whose interests diverge from those of the U.S. or Israel are repeating the errors of “Munich”, and then build arsenals and launch deadly drones and missiles that Hitler could never have dreamed of. I prefer the counsel of men like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, who remind us that it is the crimes and hubris of western “democrats” for which we must give thanks for propelling the rise to power of Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden. In reality as well as myth the great villains of history are the creation of their enemies.

#46 Comment By Fred On January 19, 2013 @ 7:48 am




#47 Comment By Glaivester On January 19, 2013 @ 7:25 pm

What I want to know is, are the guns boobalicious?