Wanna bet that the degree was granted form a bastion of statist thought?
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.
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.
Oh, no doubt!