Salon: The Hitler Gun Control Lie

[M-Cameron]

As a Jewish friend has put it, I have one word for you: "Judenrat".

There's always somebody willing to shove somebody ELSE onto the boxcar, with the fantasy that they won't end up there themselves, or at least with the hope that they'll be last.

Past a certain point, "stupid" and "evil" become indistinguishable.

exactly, look at the american slave trade......many of the native Africans sold into slavery were in fact captured by other native Africans....

 

[yokel]

Well, this is not only a naïve but also a dangerous attitude because governments do in fact have a penchant to accrue power at the expense of the liberties of individual citizens.

What we learn from history is that folks do not learn its lessons! Despite what we have learned about the deleterious effects of draconian gun control in other countries, particularly during the previous bloody century, our foes continue to beat the drums calling for more gun control.

Whatever their professed or unacknowledged aims and designs, the upshot remains that domestic disarmament is not only dangerous to one's liberties but also counterproductive in achieving safety.

In District of Columbia v. Heller(2008), Supreme Court Justice Scalia writes that “when able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.” Maj. Op. at 25, an argument that may at first blush seem anachronistic and impractical but that history shows ought not be taken lightly.

 

[wlewisiii]

Facts are horrible things when they don't fit the narrative aren't they?

So very High Road here. Not.

 

[OptimusPrime]

One part that I cannot understand is that we are arguing for the author to have these rights too. All members of these boards wish that ALL US citizens keep these individual rights, this is not an us vs. them argument. There is no losing side here, ideally. We all have a right, embrace it and don't throw it away.

 

[kwguy]

I don't think anyone is begrudging the author his 1st amendment rights, it's just disappointing to see that right being abused in an attempt to oppress others' rights.

 

[Cosmoline]

The article is full of misinformation and lies. For one thing the leaders of the Warsaw Uprising were NOT all sent to the death camps as the article claims. Many of them managed to get out and survive the war PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY WERE ARMED AND FOUGHT BACK. They went on to play a pivotal role in establishing Israel:

A number of survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, known as the "Ghetto Fighters," went on to found the kibbutz Lohamey ha-Geta'ot (literally: "Ghetto Fighters'"), which is located north of Acre. The founding members of the kibbutz include Yitzhak Zuckerman (Icchak Cukierman), who represented the ŻOB on the 'Aryan' side, and his wife Zivia Lubetkin, who commanded a fighting unit. In 1984, members of the kibbutz published Dapei Edut ("Testimonies of Survival"), four volumes of personal testimonies from 96 kibbutz members. The settlement features a museum and archives dedicated to remembering the Holocaust. Yad Mordechai, a kibbutz just north of the Gaza Strip, was named after Mordechaj Anielewicz. In 2008, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi led a group of IDF officials to the site of the uprising and spoke about the event's "importance for IDF combat soldiers."[39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

For various twisted reasons, the left wants us to assume that putting a bullet through Karl Silberbauer's head would have been futile. But even if the Frank family had still be killed, it would have kept that reptile from living another minute instead of enjoying a long retirement. Resistance, even against something as potent as the Nazi state, is not futile.

 

[Deanimator]

All members of these boards wish that ALL US citizens keep these individual rights, this is not an us vs. them argument.

There is a right to speak. There are NO rights to:

• be listened to.
• speak without contradiction.
• be respected for what one says.

If I had a dime for every anti-gunner (or any other anti-rational authoritarian) to whom I had to explain this (generally to their great anguish), I'd be able to buy myself a 40mm Pom Pom gun and a pallet of ammunition loaded with solid gold projectiles.

 

[LemmyCaution]

And this is why I can't figure why a Jewish woman like Diane Fienstein would be against 2A with this type of history behind her clan.......I dunno.

Because Dianne Feinstein is of a protected class. She will always have the state monopoly on force behind her, so she doesn't personally need a firearm. The state will always have firearms, and the state is her proxy. She's for gun control because it expands the disparity of power between her proxy and the commoners, allowing her to do as she pleases with our tax dollars without fear of meaningful objection.

And keep in mind I'm saying this from an antiwar, pro-labor, leftist viewpoint.

 

[Deanimator]

Because Dianne Feinstein is of a protected class. She will always have the state monopoly on force behind her, so she doesn't personally need a firearm.

I'm sure Nikolai Bukharin and the other "Old Bolsheviks" thought exactly the same thing...

Nikolai Bukharin

Old Bolsheviks

 

[316SS]

One part that I cannot understand is that we are arguing for the author to have these rights too. All members of these boards wish that ALL US citizens keep these individual rights, this is not an us vs. them argument. There is no losing side here, ideally. We all have a right, embrace it and don't throw it away.

I disagree. Since the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are naturally derived, not granted by the State, my hope is that ALL PEOPLE enjoy can enjoy them, not limited to US citizens. I think we are hypocrites if we don't advocate for the rights of all people.

The Declaration of Independence reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..."

And yes I realize that the founding fathers excluded women and colored people, but I do not.

There is a right to speak. There are NO rights to:

be listened to.
speak without contradiction.
be respected for what one says.

Amen. The First Amendment protects my right to tell the author he's a moron, at best.

 

[fdashes]

Could the Jews have stopped the millions killed by the Nazi with more guns in their possesion? Probably not,,,,guarenteed not most likely. BUT..without any doubt they would have more of a chance then rounded up and murdered without a fighting chance. To all the Jews I respect.....NEVER AGAIN!!!

 

[hso]

Just post a link to jpfo in the comments to the article.

 

[xXxplosive]

IMO..........the face of Fienstien morphs into the face of Schicklgruber.

 

[Robert]

Facts are horrible things when they don't fit the narrative aren't they?

What? Yes, Hitler did not start the gun control movement in post WW1 Germany. No argument there. But that does not negate the fact the he targeted specific groups and systematically disarmed them while leaving other groups alone. The author of the article seems to be willfully ignorant of that fact as it does not seem to fit his narrative.

So very High Road here. Not.

How so? Because we do not accept the article and agree with what it has to say? Please show me where any member has breached the rules or attacked you personally for posting this. We are free to disagree, or agree, so long as we do it in a respectful manner. And that means no personal insults, attacks or the like. That does not mean that we have to be accepting of everything posted.

 

[Cosmoline]

Could the Jews have stopped the millions killed by the Nazi with more guns in their possesion? Probably not,,,,guarenteed not most likely.

It's always a question of costs and benefits, even with crazy dictators. If the costs of internment and death camps was a huge commitment of personnel to fight armed resistance then the Nazis wouldn't be able to do that AND wage all the various wars they got involved with during their short run. The Warsaw Uprising didn't kill many of them, but it tied up troops and embarrassed the party. Multiply it by ten or a hundred or a thousand and you have real trouble for Hitler's schemes.

Just as, in the present case, the potential for mass noncooperation and disobedience raises the costs of enforcement of some new ban. And given the financial situation of our federal overlords, those costs are a critical factor.

 

[ilbob]

The reality of life in Weimer Germany was that Nazi party members (especially the SS and SA) were generally well armed regardless of the legality. Changing the law to what was already the de facto situation really did not change anything.

In any case, once Hitler took power he determined what the law was and the German legal system at that time was an arm of the party and did exactly as it was told. It was not possible to even charge someone unless the party approved, and the party meant Hitler himself for the most part, although obviously he did not deal with every decision personally.

The history of Germany at that time is pretty fascinating and does not make for any simple pronouncements.

I doubt the Jews would have fought back even if they had guns to do so with. They were more interested in profit and then thought they could buy their way out of trouble. When it became clear that was not going to work those with half a brain and the means to do so left the country. Most of the rest ended up dead.

 

[OptimusPrime]

316, you disagree how? I am remarking on the irony that we are standing up for all Americans to enjoy the RKBA. Me, you, every senator, every liberal author, we wish all citizens to enjoy our rights. They are fighting to throw those rights away but we are fighting to preserve their rights too. I am only an American, I can't speculate how other countries should regard their rights.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Another thought occurs to me about this article.
Freedom means that I can stand up for my neighbors. So many comments are made about what the Jews, Gypsies, Czechs, etc. should or would have done. Don't forget that these camps of Dachau and Auschwitz were built near urban centers along train lines. There were regular German citizens all around the camps, they all knew what was up. This has been well-documented and dissected of how the populace knew but couldn't do a thing about it.
Regardless of religion or culture, if a camp was in our back yard the author seems to think nothing would be done about it on behalf of our fellow man. The Holocaust survivors benefitted from truly heroic and brave people throughout Europe who sheltered them, and they generally did that while unarmed. What if the population were armed, how many millions more would have been saved? Or never rounded up in the first place?
Armed free men protect themselves and their neighbors, the author would do well to realize that.

 

[Deanimator]

When it became clear that was not going to work those with half a brain and the means to do so left the country.

Most of the ones who couldn't contribute to the development of a fission bomb, or some other militarily useful technology, had no place to go.

Besides that, some DID leave but weren't able to go FAR enough. Who suspected in 1936 that France or the Netherlands wouldn't be far ENOUGH?

And then there were the Jews who were never in Germany to start with. A room temperature IQ crypto-Nazi at work once told a Jewish friend to "go back where he came from", to which my friend replied, "Where, Auschwitz?". His father was a native born Romanian Jew living in that country when the war started. Should he have "left the country"? And to where, POLAND??? That's where he ended up anyway.

That of course leaves aside the question of why one would NOT want to kill Nazis if ones ultimate fate was extermination regardless of what one did. Apart from dim witted unilateral pacifists, nobody's EVER been able to give me a coherent explanation of the downside of taking some of ones wouldbe murderers with you.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

This old "news"

73 Fordham L. Rev. (Fordham Law Review, November, 2004)
Symposium: The Second Amendment and the Future of Gun Regulation: Historical, Legal, Policy, and Cultural Perspectives

* Bernard E. Harcourt, ''On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)'', 73 Fordham L. Rev. 653 (2004)

* Deborah Homsher, ''Response to Bernard E. Harcourt's "On Gun Registration"'', 73 Fordham L. Rev. 715 (2004)

* Robert J. Spitzer, ''Don't Know Much About History, Politics, or Theory: A Comment,'' 73 Fordham L. Rev. 721 (2004).

Reply:
* Stephen P. Halbrook, ''Nazism, the Second Amendment, and the NRA: A Reply to Professor Harcourt'', 11 Texas Rev L. & Pol 113 (2006)


Harcourt (anti-NRA) quoted William Pierce, author of the ''Turner Diaries'' and leader of the neo-Nazi National Alliance and National Vanguard, as a reliable source on the assertion that "German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens..." (Harcourt at page 668) which is true if you don't count German Jews as citizens of the Third Reich and Harcourt did not deny "The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population" (Harcourt at page 671). However, Harcourt does claim that Stephen Halbrook, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) and National Rifle Association (NRA) promote a myth of Nazi repression of firearms owners, the Nazis repressed only certain firearms owners.

Heres's a hint Hitler banned the .22 LR rimfire hollowpoint. Duh. New def for dum-dum.

Salon: The Hitler Gun Control Lie And Salon told it.

 

[316SS]

316, you disagree how? I am remarking on the irony that we are standing up for all Americans to enjoy the RKBA.

(My emphasis).

I disagree in the sense that you limit this to discussion to Americans. Instead I would hope that we would advocate for the natural rights of all people, Americans and non-Americans alike, including the inalienable right to bear arms.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

One of my favorite notes from Halbrook's article is this:

"Nazis Hunt Arms in Einstein Home, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 21, 1933, at 10 (describing the failed Nazi hunt for a cache of weapons in Albert Einstein’s home; the hunt revealed nothing more dangerous than a bread knife)."

The result of repressing Einstein over private arms led Einstein to immigrate to the U.S. and clue in FDR about the potential of e=mc2. Talk about unintended consequences.

 

[AlexanderA]

Laws disarming Jews in Europe dated back to the Middle Ages. As a result, Jews became conditioned to have nothing to do with weapons. Hitler didn't have to pass a law disarming the Jews, because, by and large, they didn't have any guns to begin with. As to the rest of the German population, they were mostly pro-Hitler. Hitler actually encouraged gun use among his followers (that is, most of the German population) through organized shooting events, as part of the preparation for war.

 

[happygeek]

source on the assertion that "German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens..." (Harcourt at page 668) which is true if you don't count German Jews as citizens of the Third Reich and Harcourt did not deny "The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population" (Harcourt at page 671).

Of course Hitler and his National Socialist government wanted the 'good German citizens' to have guns, the Nuremberg Laws disarmed the Jews by stripping their German citizenship. I guess Salon doesn't think the Nuremberg Laws count as gun control.

I'd imagine one reason why the NSDAP (National Socialist party) would want the 'good German citizens' to be armed was because there were over 4,000,000 forced laborers, i.e. slaves, from occupied Eastern Europe, 1.4 million from Poland, and 2.1 million from the USSR working in Germany during the war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labour_under_German_rule_during_World_War_II).

The 'good German citizens' were unlikely to oppose the National Socialists, they'd voted them into power in 1933 after all and were benefiting from the government's policies, until 1943 - 1944 anyway.

 

[BHP FAN]

COSMOLINE is exactly right, and I just want to add THIS... an uprising actually closed a death camp. ALWAYS resist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobibor_extermination_camp