[chuknospam]

Hmmm, this person bases their entire article on only two sources that are likely watered down, skewed & interpreted. I offer the research by Stephen Halbrook,PhD far more indepth, 20 sources, many are original documents. http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html

[chuknospam]

Lets try that again:

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html

[Atlas Sneezed]

The www.guncite.com website from which this is drawn is an outstanding site that has powerful credibility because it honestly debunks or corrects the few pro-gun myths, and presents the hundreds of pro-gun truths (and demolishes the multitude of anti-gun myths.)

I suggest a browse of the whole site.

[hinckley buzzard]

William L. Shirer was a correspondent based in Germany throughout the nazi's rise to power. Any facts he may be quoted on are likely to be accurate.
(Shirer was one of the experts who debunked the leftwing "Hitler quote" fraud of the 60's.)

It is the interpretation and the assumptions made which fall apart--this author would have us believe that gun control was unnecessary because there was no domestic anti-Nazi resistance anyway.

By the time the holocaust was operating full-bore, there were many disaffected Germans, and an armed core of resistance at that time, with or without the Jewish population, could have materially altered the course of history. It was no accident that Hitler ordered gun control which "he didn't need."

This is a classic example of the "static" thinking of the liberal.
Beause there was no major nazi resistance (among an unarmed populace)
he assumes that the ownership of arms would have made no difference--a fanciful inference at best--as if such an armed resistance would not have arisen if given the arms to do so.

"Liberalism--the politics of denial."