re: Gun Control in Nazi Germany

quote:

---

The point is that every mass murder committed by a Government came after disarming the population.

---

So the English should be in fear for their lives? Australians?

quote:

---

No. Try reading again sparky. Nobody claimed that was the only reason, that's just your rather poor reading comprehension trolling you.

---

No, but the argument gun nuts are trying to make is that gun control laws are somehow the first step towards a Nazi like regime. "Oh no. We can't have gun registration. That is what Hitler did!" As if there is a country on Earth without any gun control laws.

They are the first step in severely limiting civilian ownership which is a perfectly valid point. Luckily national registration is forbidden and there is a highly motivated voter base that intends to keep it that way. Gun-control nuts will just have to pound sand.

quote:

---

It was symbolism over substance, while it did contain some specific loosening of restrictions, it also included the overriding requirement of "trustworthiness". Who cares about the age to get a permit or the duration of the permit being lengthened if you cannot get a permit?

---

You are making these claims like "it was symbolism over substance" with no actual support to back them up outside of speculation. Are you claiming that German citizens' rights to own and possess firearms were not greatly expanded with this law? This law wasn't some propaganda tool, it was a tedious and detailed statute. You claim that "trustworthiness" was somehow used to prohibit regular citizens from actually reaping the benefit of the other language but have provided no support for this. While I agree it is an arbitrary word, it was simply carried over from the previous legislation's language, and it even had specific examples of what it meant following it, pertaining to criminals, mentally deranged, those under age of 18, etc. It also greatly expanded the list of exceptions to those required for a permit, the broadest of which included any persons who had a hunting permit.

Also, rifles and shotguns did not require these purchase permits at all.

quote:

---

Also, again from the Jewish perspective the 1938 law was quite drastic.

---

The 1938 law removed Jews from the manufacture and distribution process, NOT the personal ownership process. As I've previously stated, this was an extension of the progressive Nazi policy of removing Jews from the German economic sphere of which the firearms manufacturing industry was years after they'd been prohibited from law, media, etc.

quote:

---

One of is wrong. I believe that the specific prohibition for Jews was added in 1938?

---

You are a little confused, which is understandable. The 1938 law was passed in March and was a general statute that revised the 1928 laws and was to be applied across the entire population. The law that ultimately stripped Jews of personal weapon ownership came in November following the assassination of a German diplomat in Paris by a Jew which resulted in the Kristallnacht civil chaos afterward. The initial 1938 legislation was to be applied to Jew and German alike, though it specifically removed Jews from the manufacture and distribution business.

quote:

---

Actually it is more relevant for them as one specific thing that Hitler ordered (well sourced) is guns being removed and prohibited in conquered territories.

---

No, it's not relevant to foreign Jews at all just as the 2nd Amendment is not relevant to any persons that come under US military control in foreign conflicts. The law was for German citizens not foreigners that come under their occupation. Just as the United States will not apply its gun laws to Iraqis that come under their control during an active military conflict and just how the United States disarmed Germany in the immediate occupation aftermath following their unconditional surrender in WWII.

quote:

---

However, without a doubt the existing registration made it much easier to locate and remove guns.

---

Of course registration will make this easier. That can't be argued as it is undoubtedly common sense.

quote:

---

It's also relevant to note that the gun restrictions were not reduced (if that is what one believes happened) until the Nazis had secured power control and popular support.

---

Well it certainly happened, that is also documented and unquestionable. Granted it is fair to observe that the laws weren't reduced until Germany's political situation had stabilized and the Nazis were no longer under threat from Communists. However, they also did not pass any laws further restricting gun liberties nor implementing more stringent gun control policies to effect these ends. They continued under those laws established by the democratic Weimar governments.

But the simple fact is that the notion that strict gun control policies were enacted by the Nazis to gain power over their own people or to oppress and slaughter the Jews is an unfounded and unsupported claim. The Nazis, ironic enough as some find it, were actually far more pro-gun liberty than the majority of European governments now and in their own time.

I don't really see the significance of that graphic, tbh. There's really no correlation between Hitler's comments there and Janet Reno's. Assuming both quotes are accurate, one applies to not arming conquered peoples during a time of war and the other illustrates a dishonest and manipulative scheme to disarm Americans of a constitutional right.

Again, I'm all in on the pro-gun side of this argument and the Hitler/Nazi parallels drawn by so many on our side are stupid and largely inaccurate.

The argument can be and is being won on the rational merits of it and on the legal, constitutional end as well. I'd rather not revert to the lying and deceitful tactics of the left to try and further our agenda. I prefer being the rational and truthful side.

quote:

---

The argument can be and is being won on the rational merits of it and on the legal, constitutional end as well. I'd rather not revert to the lying and deceitful tactics of the left to try and further our agenda.

---

quote:

---

1) If we have any additional gun control laws, it will cascade until all of our guns are taken away.

---

Truth.

In the UK, they passed gun control and then more control until private citizens owning guns was outlawed. Once you legislate away a freedom and right, you will never get it back.

This British politician wants to legalize handguns so people can protect themselves and he's being labeled a nutjob and demagogued.

Besides, more gun control laws are how gun control advocates get their foot in the door to something bigger. To quote Janet Reno above.... (which was accurate BTW)

quote:

---

2) Once all of our guns are taken away, our government - including our military and police - will turn on us.

---

It will be a hell of a lot easier to control law abiding citizens. A significant majority of the military won't turn on us, it's the police that we need to be worried about as they are by and large the enforcement arm of the state.

quote:

---

ChewyDante

---

Sorry, was not meant to be directed just towards you. I was just summing up the points raised by several people in this thread.

quote:

---

So... has the UK devolved into a totalarian dictorial state yet?

---

Straw man as it would take a hell of a lot more than just gun control to make it into a totalitarian state.

Anyway, outlawing of guns has certainly made the UK less safer for law abiding citzens as crimes in the UK involving guns have been on the rise over the past few years, with last year being the largest amount of gun crimes in the UK since 1993.

LINK

quote:

---

Ever stop to think that there is a long, long line between a few reasonable gun laws and total outlaw of all weapons? Cause... there most certainly is... and there are a lot of people in various spots along that line.

---

It started with a few reasonable gun laws in the UK, then a few more reasonable laws and then more reasobable laws, and before they knew it, their rights were legislated away. Gun rights advocates always have that in mind and liberals rely on people like you to take an inch and then another inch towards their goal.

The only reasonable gun laws I support are protecting gun rights, expanding concealed carry and doing away with gun free zones as it gives would be gun men who don't give a shite about the law fish in a barrel to shoot.