Posted on 01/19/2013 4:14:27 PM PST by Army Air Corps
This week, people were shocked when the Drudge Report posted a giant picture of Hitler over a headline speculating that the White House will proceed with executive orders to limit access to firearms. The proposed orders are exceedingly tame, but Drudge’s reaction is actually a common conservative response to any invocation of gun control.
The NRA, Fox News, Fox News (again), Alex Jones, email chains, Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher, Gun Owners of America, etc., all agree that gun control was critical to Hitler’s rise to power. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (“America’s most aggressive defender of firearms ownership”) is built almost exclusively around this notion, popularizing posters of Hitler giving the Nazi salute next to the text: “All in favor of ‘gun control’ raise your right hand.”
In his 1994 book, NRA head Wayne LaPierre dwelled on the Hitler meme at length, writing: “In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolf Hitler.”
And it makes a certain amount of intuitive sense: If you’re going to impose a brutal authoritarian regime on your populace, better to disarm them first so they can’t fight back.
Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Well, the article is correct as far as it goes, Hitler did loosen gun laws as compared to the Weimer Republic.
Jews, as less than 1% of the population couldn't have successfully resisted Hitler. The majority of German Jews fled Germany, but were unable to get out of Europe. On an individual level, perhaps an armed Jew could have found his way through eastern Europe to Israel, where he would have been safe. Or survived in the woods as some did. No matter to the author though.
It's worth noting Hitler's "liberalization" wasn't complete. As a non citizen, a Jew couldn't own a firearm, and permitting was done by the government, as was enforcement.
As a Brown Shirt or member of the Schutzstaffel, this law was made for you. For communist or even a Christian Democrat, gun ownership might have been much more problematical.
I found the last paragraph most instructive.
He continued: “Their assertion that they need these guns to protect themselves from the government — as supposedly the Jews would have done against the Hitler regime — means not only that they are innocent of any knowledge and understanding of the past, but also that they are consciously or not imbued with the type of fascist or Bolshevik thinking that they can turn against a democratically elected government, indeed turn their guns on it, just because they don’t like its policies, its ideology, or the color, race and origin of its leaders.”
Again, true as far as it goes, Jews couldn't have stopped Hitler. Leaving aside the authors specious implication that Hitler was democratically elected, he represented only a minority. Only supporters were widely armed thus able to disrupt the elections of 32 and 33. Gun rights were selective.
Would it be insensitive to mention that in California, a state where it's hard to get concealed carry permits, both antigun Senators have one. Or that here in Illinois where concealed carry doesn't exist, plenty of politicians carry. Sometimes they forget and get arrested trying to board airplanes. At one time Chicago aldermen could carry, don't know if that's still the case. And Chuck Schumer is reported to have a carry permit in NY, don't know if that's true.
I wouldn't compare the aforenamed to Nazis, but there's a similarity in the similarity of selective legislation.
And retired LEOs in NY want an exemption from the new magazine requirement. Want an exemption, don't retire, or support equal rights for all citizens.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Well, the article is correct as far as it goes, Hitler did loosen gun laws as compared to the Weimer Republic.
Jews, as less than 1% of the population couldn't have successfully resisted Hitler. The majority of German Jews fled Germany, but were unable to get out of Europe. On an individual level, perhaps an armed Jew could have found his way through eastern Europe to Israel, where he would have been safe. Or survived in the woods as some did. No matter to the author though.
It's worth noting Hitler's "liberalization" wasn't complete. As a non citizen, a Jew couldn't own a firearm, and permitting was done by the government, as was enforcement.
As a Brown Shirt or member of the Schutzstaffel, this law was made for you. For communist or even a Christian Democrat, gun ownership might have been much more problematical.
I found the last paragraph most instructive.
He continued: “Their assertion that they need these guns to protect themselves from the government — as supposedly the Jews would have done against the Hitler regime — means not only that they are innocent of any knowledge and understanding of the past, but also that they are consciously or not imbued with the type of fascist or Bolshevik thinking that they can turn against a democratically elected government, indeed turn their guns on it, just because they don’t like its policies, its ideology, or the color, race and origin of its leaders.”
Again, true as far as it goes, Jews couldn't have stopped Hitler. Leaving aside the authors specious implication that Hitler was democratically elected, he represented only a minority. Only supporters were widely armed thus able to disrupt the elections of 32 and 33. Gun rights were selective.
Would it be insensitive to mention that in California, a state where it's hard to get concealed carry permits, both antigun Senators have one. Or that here in Illinois where concealed carry doesn't exist, plenty of politicians carry. Sometimes they forget and get arrested trying to board airplanes. At one time Chicago aldermen could carry, don't know if that's still the case. And Chuck Schumer is reported to have a carry permit in NY, don't know if that's true.
I wouldn't compare the aforenamed to Nazis, but there's a similarity in the similarity of selective legislation.
And retired LEOs in NY want an exemption from the new magazine requirement. Want an exemption, don't retire, or support equal rights for all citizens.
Whether or not the Nazis outlawed guns, the restriction of legal firearm use and legal force to der Staat is bad mojo. But for some reason the "anti-Fascists" of the Left never seem to understand that. At least not in the United States (there are countries where the Left arms itself and revolts, but they're apparently against that here in the heart of capitalism).
Jeez...
When are we going to get the straight data on the GCA and how it applies to Americans?
I don’t care about Nazi Germany, since it no longer exists, but I DO care about America.
As a student of German history, I have read nothing that would suggest that Hitler banned firearms of any kind from any quarter. And as a result, I want to know what Nazi-ism has to do with Zero and his being set up to be a dictator.
Oh, no doubt!
While Jews consisted only 1% of the population and could not have successfully taken on the German army, they could have made them pay dearly if they were armed.
bflr
“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. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”
—Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.
Yes, Hitler did promote gun control within factions he sought to repress, several years before more aggressive actions were taken.
I also noticed the historical revisionism promoted by this Administration and their proponents attempting to disassociate Hitler with their similar political maneuvers. It has been promoted on most of the search engines as well as part of their information warfare campaign.
It must be a critical aspect of their longer ranging goals.
Which illogically assumes that a threat from a present day Hitler type is not possible, which is total baloney. This is an acutely stupid "law", and needs to be brazenly ignored. Operating under the assumption that the possibility of a present day Hitler, or worse, isn't real, opens wide the door for one to come through. It leaves people unaware and openly vulnerable to what they cannot conceive as happening, and this may well be intentional.
See? I didn’t know that existed, and therefore, didn’t read it. My bad. I stand corrected.
Germany initiates gun registry, to barely a peep
The Washington Post ^ | Saturday, January 19, 2013 | Michael Birnbaum
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2979945/posts
what could possibly go wrong?
I’d only add that the fact that the Weimar Republic also had strict gun control laws actually is the best argument against gun control, because when Hitler came to power, those gun control laws were right there for him to use to confiscate guns from people he considered “undesirable,” so much so that he could “liberalize” the laws to make it easier for gauleiters and brown shirts, on the one hand, and harder for Jooos! and political opponents to defend themselves on the other.
Just because Diane Feinstein or BHO might not happen to have immediate designs on your liberties, doesn’t mean that the next regime won’t. They have a proposed policy that assumes the good intentions of those implementing it, and that’s not a safe assumption.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.