Gun Control Under Hitler

[Duct Tape]

In 1938, Hitler revised Germany's gun laws from 1928. In the revisions, Jewish people were barred from gun ownership, but gun rights were otherwise expanded.

I believe this information is important for historical accuracy and for the ongoing "debate." Let' s not give Alex Jones a free pass when he throws in Hitler as an example of gun control amounting to tyranny.

According to information from Professor of Law Bernard E. Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."

They also "extended the number of groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement."

Lastly, in terms of the non-Jewish related revisions, third and fourth revisions "lowered the age for the acquisition of firearms" and "extended the period that a permit to carry was valid."


A much more detailed outline of the revisions (starting on page 20) is included in the source itself. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/harcourt_fordham.pdf

I simply wanted this information to be available. Don't attack me for providing a source.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/harcourt_fordham.pdf

[mr_hat]

1. Yikes. Do you know how easy the RW counter-argument

to this is?

[Duct Tape]

4. Which counter-argument?

Are you meaning the fact that Jewish people were barred?

[virgogal]

5. Hitler wanted the Jews eliminated so he

took away ONLY their guns would probably be the argument.

[Duct Tape]

6. Ah, I see. Thank you for that clarification. I'm usually quite quick to

see counter-arguments. My response to that would be that as important as the lack of guns in the Jewish community was, the strong existence of guns outside of that community was equally, if not more, important. He utilized both sides of the spectrum. The question to ask would then be how easily can gun owners and/or enthusiasts be manipulated to use their weapons for someone else's political gain? This draws parallels with hate radio in this country and stochastic terrorism. Also, I think that for them to make that argument would be a bit counter-productive. The whole reason they like to use the Hitler example is to show that tyrannical governments are able to assume power through the powerlessness of those who don't bear weapons. With Nazi Germany, however, the establishment was able to hold power despite the existence of guns. Some might say that this is because true opposition to the government was only on the Jewish front, therefore gun owners did not feel the need to protect themselves. The fact is, although Jewish people were undoubtedly the worst off, other groups were also under attack. These groups had the chance to fight back. Also, making such an argument suggests that gun owners would only fight back if the government was a direct threat to them. If gun owners truly have such a egotistical approach, then they are not the embodiment of the constitution, which is to protect ALL OF US, and they should stop suggesting that they are fulfilling the vision of the second amendment.

Perhaps, the main reason for this argument is that gun enthusiasts believe that they will be the persecuted group, the one who is barred from ownership. This is of course complete nonsense because no law is being put up for a vote that would ban one group from ownership. Furthermore, if one group were to be barred it would be the group that is most discriminated against in this country, just as Jewish people were the most discriminated against in Germany. Southern whites are not the most discriminated group as I'm sure we all understand. (By the way, I am not suggesting all gun owners are white, southern, or republican)

[virgogal]

8. Why even mention Southern whites at all then? Strange.

[Duct Tape]

13. Because I see a whole lot more southerners and republicans talking

about their fear of a tyrannical government than I do other groups. There are others, however, and that's why I put that tidbit at the end.

[Mimosa]

9. "This is of course complete nonsense..."

Not really. If history teaches us anything, it teaches that what has happened before will happen again. Maybe technologically updated, with different 'actors' but past is prologue. Empires decline, conflicts arise, and some groups may be blamed or become targeted as opposition.

[Duct Tape]

12. Of course history repeats itself. I never said it didn't or that it wasn't possible.

I pointed out that no legislation is out there saying that one group, like Jewish people or southerners or poor people etc., can't own a gun. I also said that for southerners to fear that they would be the group isn't very realistic, I think Jewish people, poor people, or people of color would be more likely to be the first group.

[Kurska]

2. I am Jewish. I plan to keep my guns n/t

[Mimosa]

7. I'll defend your right to keep your guns, Kurska

Last week as I was watching The Pianist (again...) several thoughts related to weapons occurred to me. One being it sucked that not having a gun meant a person couldn't even kill herself effectively to stop from being forced into a cattle car and taken to the concentration camp. Stabbing oneself is iffy. Even if it works its a long sloooow extremely painful way to go.

Here's a link for you, Kurska:

http://jpfo.org/

[Recursion]

3. I'm not sure how comforting that is...

But, point taken.

[gollygee]

10. What kind of argument is that?

He only took guns from the group of people he sent to concentration camps and gas chambers, so it wasn't such a bad thing?

Really. What?

[Duct Tape]

11. That's not the argument. I'm pointing out that Alex Jones was not telling the whole truth with his

statement. Who said it wasn't that bad? Jesus christ, people here on du are getting terrible. I'm making the point that despite the existence of guns, Hitler still held power.