"Hitler liberalized gun laws in Germany"

1/11/13

[rightwingintelligentsia]

Here’s a story on the same topic in today’s Salon.

Seems to be the lib talking point du jour.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

[cizinec]

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.

[TennesseeGirl]

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 I know it doesn’t directly answer your question, but the historical documents are very informative in relation to our current culture and how the sheeple are being deceived.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...

[GeronL]

seriously deluded liberals, making it up as they go along

[FredZarguna]

The Barnhardt citation (the second one) has a number of problems. Some of the claims cited as "historical" are, in fact, controversial. The references to case law are sometimes incorrect, and several are obsolete. For example, writing in 2004 he claims the 2nd Amendment was not incorporated. This is not true anymore; but it as also not true even then: the claim of Nonincorporation was held by a Federal circuit, not by the Supreme Court.

[STD]

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!

[FredZarguna]

This is almost true, but not quite.

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.

[Blood of Tyrants]

“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.

[FredZarguna]

The problem with the linked discussion is that it cites the documents, as if documentation actually matters to totalitarians. Ho Chi Minh produced a document similar to -- which in some cases quoted verbatim -- the Declaration of Independence. The Soviet "Constitution" contained declarations of rights missing from the traditions and laws of many Western Democracies.

So what?

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.

[lacrew]

“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.”

[KGeorge]

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.

[correctthought]

It may not have any connection to reality, but it will be picked up as published fact by the left now.