Skip to comments."Hitler liberalized gun laws in Germany"
Posted on 01/11/2013 11:43:47 AM PST by pabianice
Need the help of some Freeper historian.
Over at DumpsterUndergeound, an "historian" is on a tear about guns. He claims that Hitler actually liberalized gun laws in Germany, allowing Germans to buy guns after the Treaty of Versailles had disarmed Germany. He then claims that disarming the Jews was actually a kindness in that it reduced their killings because the Jews couldn't fight back.
I know that DU is psychotic, but I need some historical facts about what actually happened to German gun rights after 1933.
Why do you bother? I applaud your desire to understand the “other side” and their arguments, but The post you linked to had all the hallmarks of a brainless leftist - vague references to supposed “facts,” and obsession with Nazis, and of course, a vulgar comment about Jesus and sex. Their political arguments always end with some kind of obscene sexual comment, without fail.
This type of degraded thinking is remarkably uniform among them
That's the most ridiculous reasoning I have ever heard. (not directed at you, Pab)
Note in Sept. 1938 the Nazi's outlawed "Jewish Gun Merchants".
The Jews had guns, they just did not believe what was happening to them was actually happening.
Thanks for letting us know about the Stormfront types on DU.
He then claims that disarming the Jews was actually a kindness in that it reduced their killings because the Jews couldn't fight back
Bump #2, that pretty much covers it.
The Jews had guns, they just did not believe what was happening to them was actually happening.”
...they still don’t get it.
Going from a website with the phrase
“March 18 The Gun Law bans Jewish gun merchants” to
“The Jews had guns, they just did not believe what was happening to them was actually happening.”
is a bit much, don’t you think?
We all have read that most of the Jews of Germany (most of EVERYONE not a complete jackass) were shocked that en “enlightened” nation that produced Bach and Beethoven could become the shit-hole of death known as Nazi Germany, but I haven’t read anywhere that the majority of Jewish civilians in Germany were heavily armed but were just STUPEFIED into not shooting their way out of the round ups.
If you have sources that say otherwise, I would be interested in reading them.
“Antisemitism and the persecution of Jews were central tenets of Nazi ideology. In their 25-point party program published in 1920, Nazi party members publicly declared their intention to segregate Jews from Aryan society and to abrogate their political, legal, and civil rights.”
Today's version goes like this:
Democrat party members have as their intention to segregate the people from the Constitution and to abrogate their political, legal, and civil rights.
Seek out those who have not yet been fully assimilated and encourage them to seek the truth. Always move towards higher ground and back away from those who refuse to acknowledge history and engage in a logical debate.
More it reduced how long it took to kill them.
Anyone anywhere who dares try to rationalize what hitler, (may he burn in endless agony for all of eternity,) did to the Jews AND others is as insane as hitler was and as full of irrational hatred as the nazis who agreed with him...and they bear watching. Closely.
Juat making it up as they go along, I suppose.
Don't put words in my mouth with your misinterpretations of what I said. Prior to 1933, Jews (in Germany)had the same rights as all Germans, because they were Germans in the eyes of the law.
Thus I could have said: "The Germans had guns..."
Does that mean "most Germans were heavily armed"? No, It means some Germans had guns, some did not. The Jews had the same rights to guns as did all Germans.
"Stupefied"? -- That is again an assumption on your part. Go the the Holocaust Museum in DC, or read Metaxas book on Bonhoeffer, both are good sources of information on the subject. Even many of the Germans at the time (1933-1938 did not believe what was happening, but that does not mean they were "stupified"
Liberals/Socialist really are crazy. They act like we don’t know history.
The Wehrmacht banned all guns in 1928. In 1934, the Nazis used gun control to jail any ‘dissenters’ who opposed their regime. In 1938, they removed some of the gun control restrictions for the NAZI PARTY and banned all weapons for the Jews.
And then Kristallnacht happened a few months later.
Socialists behave like Socialists no matter what country or era they come from.
It is an excellent book, very informative of an insiders look at Germany and actions taken by anti-Hitler Germans.
Here’s a story on the same topic in today’s Salon.
Seems to be the lib talking point du jour.
Thank you for the links. It is clear Hitler loosened gun restrictions, but only for his supporters. Indeed, he tightened laws on gun makers, ensuring none were Jews, and disarmed the Jews of knives, clubs and all other means of defending themselves. The argument that he ensured those he planned to murder were unarmed is still valid.
Thus, in the streets of Bratislava, Krav Maga was born.
I’ve found this site (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/) instructive for researching propaganda from that time period. I know it doesn’t directly answer your question, but the historical documents are very informative in relation to our current culture and how the sheeple are being deceived. So, just for future reference...
seriously deluded liberals, making it up as they go along
You have been called to be separated and apart from evil. Why brother; they don’t use logic, or history unless it suits their arguments. They seldom do, BTW! Lie-berals can’t change until shit happens and they have to grow up!
As an aside, the restrictive gun laws of the Weimer Republic are instructive, because one of the reasons they were tightened was to reduce the pervasive street violence between the NASDAP and Communists in the 1920's and 1930's.
Predictably, they failed.
In addition, the following qualifier moots many of the liberal claims that Hitler was a firearms libertarian; that firearms were proscribed for those "known to be engaged in activities hostile to the state;" Note that there is no consideration of Due Process in depriving German citizens (forget about the Jews, their RKBA was already disposed of) of their right to self-defense, nor was even any specific transgression required. All that was needed was that a German be "known" to be engaged in "activities."
By Nazi standards, everyone on this site is engaged in activities hostile to the state.
“He then claims that disarming the Jews was actually a kindness in that it reduced their killings because the Jews couldn’t fight back.”
It reduced the killings alright ... of the Nazis. They were nice and safe while rounding up Jews, and other “undesirables” for the gas chambers and ovens.
Neither was worth the paper it was printed on.
The historical fact is that the Nazis used the gun laws of the Weimer Republic to extremes not previously used, and promoted gun (and other forms of martial) training for the purpose of cementing and strengthening the Nazi state. Where the law suited the purposes of the Party, it was embraced. Where it was inconvenient, it was ignored. A Nazi jurist (or more likely Gestapo officer) could drive a truck through this provision of the supposedly "liberalized" gun law: "[firearms are proscribed for those] known to be engaged in activities hostile to the state."
Promoting the interests of a tyrannical state is exactly the opposite of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
“That’s the most ridiculous reasoning I have ever heard.”
Let me introduce you to the writings of a lefty named Melissa Lafsky:
“We don’t know how much Kennedy was affected by her death, or what she’d have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history. What we don’t know, as always, could fill a Metrodome.
Still, ignorance doesn’t preclude a right to wonder. So it doesn’t automatically make someone (aka, me) a Limbaugh-loving, aerial-wolf-hunting NRA troll for asking what Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted’s death, and what she’d have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded.
Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it.”
0.o This looks like the same kinda stuff the dummies have been talking about wanting to me. I’m getting whiplash & bookmarking for later when it’s quiet here. I don’t know (yet) what Hitler has to do with the Second Amendment.
To Laz- This is one thing I know we can count on. It sounds like they’re throwing everything now, hoping something will stick. But even they can’t keep their story straight.
It may not have any connection to reality, but it will be picked up as published fact by the left now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.