Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hitlerís Control-The lessons of Nazi history
National Review ^ | 5-23-03 | Dave Kopel

Posted on 05/23/2003 6:02:42 AM PDT by SJackson

This week's CBS miniseries Hitler: The Rise of Evil tries to explain the conditions that enabled a manifestly evil and abnormal individual to gain total power and to commit mass murder. The CBS series looks at some of the people whose flawed decisions paved the way for Hitler's psychopathic dictatorship: Hitler's mother who refused to recognize that her child was extremely disturbed and anti-social; the judge who gave Hitler a ludicrously short prison sentence after he committed high treason at the Beer Hall Putsch; President Hindenburg and the Reichstag delegates who (except for the Social Democrats) who acceded to Hitler's dictatorial Enabling Act rather than forcing a crisis (which, no matter how bad the outcome, would have been far better than Hitler being able to claim legitimate power and lead Germany toward world war).

Acquainting a new generation of television viewers with the monstrosity of Hitler is a commendable public service by CBS, for if we are serious about “;Never again,”; then we must be serious about remembering how and why Hitler was able to accomplish what he did. Political scientist R. J. Rummel, the world's foremost scholar of the mass murders of the 20th century, estimates that the Nazis killed about 21 million people, not including war casualties. With modern technology, a modern Hitler might be able to kill even more people even more rapidly.

Indeed, right now in Zimbabwe, the Robert Mugabe tyranny is perpetrating a genocide by starvation aimed at liquidating about six million people. Mugabe is great admirer of Adolf Hitler. Mugabe's number-two man (who died last year) was Chenjerai Hunzvi, the head of Mugabe's terrorist gangs, who nicknamed himself “;Hitler.”; One of the things that Robert Mugabe, “;Hitler”; Hunzvi, and Adolf Hitler all have in common is their strong and effective programs of gun control.

Simply put, if not for gun control, Hitler would not have been able to murder 21 million people. Nor would Mugabe be able to carry out his current terror program.

Writing in The Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Stephen Halbrook demonstrates that German Jews and other German opponents of Hitler were not destined to be helpless and passive victims. (A magazine article by Halbrook offers a shorter version of the story, along with numerous photographs. Halbrook's Arizona article is also available as a chapter in the book Death by Gun Control, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.) Halbrook details how, upon assuming power, the Nazis relentlessly and ruthlessly disarmed their German opponents. The Nazis feared the Jews — many of whom were front-line veterans of World War One — so much that Jews were even disarmed of knives and old sabers.

The Nazis did not create any new firearms laws until 1938. Before then, they were able to use the Weimar Republic's gun controls to ensure that there would be no internal resistance to the Hitler regime.

In 1919, facing political and economic chaos and possible Communist revolution after Germany's defeat in the First World War, the Weimar Republic enacted the Regulation of the Council of the People's Delegates on Weapons Possession. The new law banned the civilian possession of all firearms and ammunition, and demanded their surrender “;immediately.”;

Once the political and economic situation stabilized, the Weimar Republic created a less draconian gun-control law. The law was similar to, although somewhat milder than, the gun laws currently demanded by the American gun-control lobby.

The Weimar Law on Firearms and Ammunition required a license to engage in any type of firearm business. A special license from the police was needed to either purchase or carry a firearm. The German police were granted complete discretion to deny licenses to criminals or individuals the police deemed untrustworthy. Unlimited police discretion over citizen gun acquisition is the foundation of the “;Brady II”; proposal introduced by Handgun Control, Inc., (now called the Brady Campaign) in 1994.

Under the Weimar law, no license was needed to possess a firearm in the home unless the citizen owned more than five guns of a particular type or stored more than 100 cartridges. The law's requirements were more relaxed for firearms of a “;hunting”; or “;sporting”; type. Indeed, the Weimar statute was the world's first gun law to create a formal distinction between sporting and non-sporting firearms. On the issues of home gun possession and sporting guns, the Weimar law was not as stringent as the current Massachusetts gun law, or some of modern proposals supported by American gun-control lobbyists.

Significantly, the Weimar law required the registration of most lawfully owned firearms, as do the laws of some American states. In Germany, the Weimar registration program law provided the information which the Nazis needed to disarm the Jews and others considered untrustworthy.

The Nazi disarmament campaign that began as soon as Hitler assumed power in 1933. While some genocidal governments (such as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia) dispensed with lawmaking, the Nazi government followed the German predilection for the creation of large volumes of written rules and regulations. Yet it was not until March 1938 (the same month that Hitler annexed Austria in the Anschluss) that the Nazis created their own Weapons Law. The new law formalized what had been the policy imposed by Hitler using the Weimar Law: Jews were prohibited from any involvement in any firearm business.

On November 9, 1938, the Nazis launched the Kristallnacht, pogrom, and unarmed Jews all over Germany were attacked by government-sponsored mobs. In conjunction with Kristallnacht, the government used the administrative authority of the 1938 Weapons Law to require immediate Jewish surrender of all firearms and edged weapons, and to mandate a sentence of death or 20 years in a concentration camp for any violation.

Even after 1938, the German gun laws were not prohibitory. They simply gave the government enough information and enough discretion to ensure that victims inside Germany would not be able to fight back.

Under the Hitler regime, the Germans had created a superbly trained and very large military — the most powerful military the world had ever seen until then. Man-for-man, the Nazis had greater combat effectiveness than every other army in World War II, and were finally defeated because of the overwhelming size of the Allied armies and the immensely larger economic resources of the Allies.

Despite having an extremely powerful army, the Nazis still feared the civilian possession of firearms by hostile civilians. Events in 1943 proved that the fear was not mere paranoia. As knowledge of the death camps leaked out, determined Jews rose up in arms in Tuchin, Warsaw, Bialystok, Vilna, and elsewhere. Jews also joined partisan armies in Eastern Europe in large numbers, and amazingly, even organized escapes and revolts in the killing centers of Treblinka and Auschwitz. There are many books which recount these heroic stories of resistance. Yuri Suhl's They Fought Back (1967) is a good summary showing that hundreds of thousands of Jews did fight. The book Escape from Sobibor and the eponymous movie (1987) tell the amazing story how Russian Jewish prisoners of war organized a revolt that permanently destroyed one of the main death camps.

It took the Nazis months to destroy the Jews who rose up in the Warsaw ghetto, who at first were armed with only a few firearms that had been purchased on the black market, stolen or obtained from the Polish underground.

Halbrook contends that the history of Germany might have been changed if more of its citizens had been armed, and if the right to bear arms had been enshrined it Germany's culture and constitution. Halbrook points out that while resistance took place in many parts of occupied Europe, there was almost no resistance in Germany itself, because the Nazis had enjoyed years in which they could enforce the gun laws to ensure that no potential opponent of the regime had the means to resist.

No one can foresee with certainty which countries will succumb to genocidal dictatorship. Germany under the Weimar Republic was a democracy in a nation with a very long history of much greater tolerance for Jews than existed in France, England, or Russia, or almost anywhere else. Zimbabwe's current gun laws were created when the nation was the British colony of Rhodesia, and the authors of those laws did not know that the laws would one day be enforced by an African Hitler bent on mass extermination.

One never knows if one will need a fire extinguisher. Many people go their whole lives without needing to use a fire extinguisher, and most people never need firearms to resist genocide. But if you don't prepare to have a life-saving tool on hand during an unexpected emergency, then you and your family may not survive.

In the book Children of the Flames, Auschwitz survivor Menashe Lorinczi recounts what happened when the Soviet army liberated the camp: the Russians disarmed the SS guards. Then, two emaciated Jewish inmates, now armed with guns taken from the SS, systematically exacted their revenge on a large formation of SS men. The disarmed SS passively accepted their fate. After Lorinczi moved to Israel, he was often asked by other Israelis why the Jews had not fought back against the Germans. He replied that many Jews did fight. He then recalled the sudden change in the behavior of the Jews and the Germans at Auschwitz, once the Russian army's new “;gun control”; policy changed who had the guns there: “;And today, when I am asked that question, I tell people it doesn't matter whether you're Hungarian, Polish, Jewish, or German: If you don't have a gun, you have nothing.”;

Richard Griffiths is a doctor of psychology with research interest in gun issues. Dave Kopel is a NRO contributing editor.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: banglist; weimarrepublic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-219 next last
An interesting article, 55 page PDF file: Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of German Jews
1 posted on 05/23/2003 6:02:42 AM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
*bang_list
2 posted on 05/23/2003 6:03:43 AM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Yehuda; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; ...
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
3 posted on 05/23/2003 6:04:05 AM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
A tangentally related thread on the nature of fascism.
4 posted on 05/23/2003 6:11:11 AM PDT by William McKinley (You're so vain, you probably think this tagline's about you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
I have seen the smiling fact of Hitler return --at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
5 posted on 05/23/2003 6:12:50 AM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Two things, and I admit that I haven't read either Halbrook's new book nor the article. But I have had the "Jewish gun" debate before with a professor of German history, who has explained to me that the Nazis had to impose FEW gun controls---the WEIMAR REPUBLIC had alerady outlawed all "hunting guns, sports clubs," and virtually all private ownership of weapons, in, I think 1926!

I'll be interested to read Halbrook's book, then. In our zeal to blame the Nazis, it is worth remembering that at the very least, the FOUNDATIONS for gun control were laid in the DEMOCRATIC WEIMAR REPUBLIC.

Second, and equally important "lesson" that the author doesn't address or appears to gloss over is that the way Hitler gained power was through threatening to shut down the German government. (Where have we seen this threat before? Maybe 1995?)

My point to students when I teach this is that whenever your government gets so big that you can't live without it (save for national security-type issues), you are already in trouble. Yes, Hindenberg and the others let Hitler in, but the fate of Germany was sealed the moment that, in response to a threat to "shut down the government," the German people could not say, "Go Ahead! Be MY GUEST!"

6 posted on 05/23/2003 6:30:07 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RLK
in a frightening female face.
7 posted on 05/23/2003 6:30:33 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Good job, National Review.
8 posted on 05/23/2003 6:32:48 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
in a frightening female face.

You might get an argument on the female part.

9 posted on 05/23/2003 6:33:46 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7; Eric in the Ozarks

10 posted on 05/23/2003 6:42:49 AM PDT by Paul Ross (From the State Looking Forward to Global Warming! Let's Drown France!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Sig !
11 posted on 05/23/2003 7:06:52 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LS
The pathetic part is that the Democratic German Government put the gun control in place to "protect themselves" from the Nazi thugs and gangs. Worked really well didn't it!

All the Nazis had to do was "reinterpret" the existing laws to disarm anyone that wasn't a Nazi party member. Sounds a little like the 1989 assault weapons "regulation" change doesn’t it?

The only gun control that has ever worked for the law-abiding public is the ability to hit what you aim at...
12 posted on 05/23/2003 7:10:29 AM PDT by El Laton Caliente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
This type of genocide, perpetrated against a disarmed America, will never happen in our lifetimes.

13 posted on 05/23/2003 7:30:58 AM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
One minor point.

The German military was fierce, but it's downfall was not solely attributable to the size and economic strength of the allies.

Hitler is given credit for being a military genious, but that is far from the truth. The tactics which succeded early in the war were divised by others, and Hitler was not initially eager to try them.

Hitler called for a halt of bombing of British airfields and ordered that the bombers target civilian areas. This was out of anger after a bombing run on Berlin. Had Hitler not made this change, the RAF would have been eliminated as a fighting force within a matter of weeks. Even RAF officers conceeded this fact.

This flaw resulted on continued combat with England, and ultimately the 2 front war.

Hitler also allowed a British force in Greece delay his assault on Russia. This delay was a primary reason for his ultimate defeat as, if he had moved when planned, his rate of advance would have passed Moscow before winter hit, and he could have turned that front in to a fight against partisans rather than a military force.

Rommel's success in Africa was actually against his orders. He was supposed to take his small force and basically allow the Italians a means of escape. Instead he launched an offensive. Because of his success, and the needs of the Russian front, Rommel was never adequately supplied. Once the US opened a second front in Africa he was doomed.

Rather than retreat from Stalingrad, Hitler ordered that his forces fight to the last bullet. As a result he lost over 200,000 men who could have been available for a spring offensive or to defend against the allies.

Finally, he refused to acknowledge that the Normandy invasion was more than a diversion until a solid beach-head was developed and enough forces were in France to not only defend their territory, but to launch aggressive offensives.

Hitler gets credit he doesn't deserve, and I wish the truth were more widely known.
14 posted on 05/23/2003 7:56:41 AM PDT by sharktrager (There are 2 kids of people in this world: people with loaded guns and people who dig.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sharktrager
>Hitler gets credit he doesn't deserve, and I wish the truth were more widely known.

And why in the world
didn't Germany invade
Britain when they could?!

(Did Hitler himself
hold back because he believed
Brits were "saxon" kins?)

15 posted on 05/23/2003 8:00:54 AM PDT by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: El Laton Caliente
Yep. The Weimar Republic was a disaster in almost every respect.
16 posted on 05/23/2003 8:02:19 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss
Hitler had a belief that England would sue for peace. The royal family would be forced out, and Edward would come back and resume his reign.

In fact, this might have happened had he destroyed the RAF. Instead he strengthened the resolve of the Brits, and was stuck fighting a war that was not the German strong suit. Germany did not have the large fleets of long range heavy bombers necessary to truly pound the Brits in to submission. His smaller, faster, bombers were great for blitzkreig type fighting, but not for seige type combat.

The Germans also were not as experienced in naval assaults as the Allies were on D-Day. They were dependant on use or artillary and armor that wouldn't have been available. With the RAF still a viable force, any landing would have been difficult to achieve. It could have been done, but we must remember that one reason Normandy worked was that the Germans had almost no fighters in the area they could use against the allies.
17 posted on 05/23/2003 8:12:22 AM PDT by sharktrager (There are 2 kids of people in this world: people with loaded guns and people who dig.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sharktrager
In 1919, facing political and economic chaos and possible Communist revolution . . .

Not "possible", actual. Communists did, briefly, take over a part of Germany. From Lenin's 1919 "Message of Greetings To The Bavarian Soviet Republic":

(We) heartedly greet the Soviet Republic of Bavaria. We ask you insistently to give us more frequent, definite information on the following. What measures have you taken to fight the bourgeois executioners . . . have councils of workers and servants been formed in the different sections of the city; have the workers been armed; have the bourgeoisie been disarmed . . have you taken over all the banks; have you taken hostages from the ranks of the bourgeoisie . . .full text

18 posted on 05/23/2003 8:26:52 AM PDT by DPB101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All
the Pink Swastika, chronicles the dominance of homosexuals in hitler's Nazi party, it makes for an interesting read. It aslo give some useful information about the american Nazi movement and its ties to the homosexual rights movement.
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/pinkswastika.hold/book.html

quote:

At the door of the Bratwurstgloeckl, a tavern frequented by homosexual roughnecks and bully-boys, Roehm turned in and joined the handful of sexual deviants and occultists who were celebrating the success of a new campaign of terror. Their organization, once known as the German Worker's Party, was now called the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, The National Socialist German Worker's Party -- the Nazis.

Yes, the Nazis met in a ``gay'' bar.

It was no coincidence that homosexuals were among those who founded the Nazi Party. In fact, the party grew out of a number of groups in Germany which were centers of homosexual activity and activism. Many of the characteristic rituals, symbols, activities and philosophies we associate with Nazism came from these organizations or from contemporary homosexuals. The extended-arm ``Sieg Heil'' salute, for example, was a ritual of the Wandervoegel (``Wandering Birds'' or ``Rovers''), a male youth society which became the German equivalent of the Boy Scouts. The Wandervoegel was started in the late 1800's by a group of homosexual teenagers. Its first adult leader, Karl Fischer, called himself ``der Fuehrer'' (``the Leader'') (Koch:25f).

19 posted on 05/23/2003 10:27:10 AM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sharktrager
Much of what you said is true. Hitler had the war won, but threw it away with some kook decisions.
20 posted on 05/23/2003 10:41:28 AM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
>It was no coincidence that homosexuals were among those who founded the Nazi Party.

It's an example,
too, of what politicians
do to extremists

once the extremists
have served their purpose helping
to achieve power...

21 posted on 05/23/2003 10:50:38 AM PDT by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sharktrager
>Hitler had a belief that England would sue for peace. ...

Thanks for the update.
This has always seemed to me
the war's strangest thing.

22 posted on 05/23/2003 10:52:06 AM PDT by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The extended-arm ``Sieg Heil'' salute, for example, was a ritual of the Wandervoegel (``Wandering Birds'' or ``Rovers''),

Hardly, Hitler emulated Mussolini who used the Roman salute. ( Ironic that Germany also uses the Roman Eagle on their flag yet they were in fact the barbarians, Some would say they still are.

23 posted on 05/23/2003 11:10:01 AM PDT by ffusco (Maecilius Fuscus, Governor of Longovicium , Manchester, England. 238-244 AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss
The strength of the Germans become their weakness !

To overcome fear and panic (( effectively use it against your enemy )) in battle ...

they use discipline // loyalty to the extreme which in the beginning and the end eternally blinds ---

dooms them !

This would be called a very fatal character flaw !

Just substitute guilt for fear -- panic ...

and you got the definition of a liberal !
24 posted on 05/23/2003 11:11:46 AM PDT by f.Christian (( apocalypsis, from Gr. apokalypsis, from apokalyptein to uncover, from apo- + kalyptein to cover))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
ping
25 posted on 05/23/2003 11:13:48 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: SJackson
In a related development:

Miniature Dogs Chase Off Flasher

May 23

BERLIN (Reuters) - A German flasher exposing himself to a woman in a forest was forced to run for cover when she set her three small pug dogs on him, police said on Friday.

Police in the southern town of Straubing said the man, who was about 30, was naked when he surprised the 55-year-old woman with the dogs.

"He had Bermuda shorts and a T-shirt in one hand and his private parts in the other," said police spokesman Klaus Pickel.

The woman spurred the lap dogs into action, one of which bit the man on the calf before he fled through the trees.

"The dog was too small to bite him anywhere else," said Pickel. The man is still on the loose.

27 posted on 05/23/2003 11:31:53 AM PDT by tracer (/b>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
I'm sorry, but this is quite simply a horrible article. Its central premise is laughably wrong. Hitler didn't gain and keep power because of gun control.

The real key -- which Kopel ignores in his rush to confront the wrong issue -- is found in this little nugget:

the judge who gave Hitler a ludicrously short prison sentence after he committed high treason at the Beer Hall Putsch.

Kopel apparently does not consider the possibility that Hitler's short prison term (of which he served only about half) was no mistake. The judge agreed with Hitler. The German people gave agreed with him. They liked what he stood for, gave him dictatorial powers, and were willing to fight and die in large numbers on his behalf.

Gun rights are swell -- but they're pointless if the gun-owners agree with the dictator.

Kopel had better pull his head out and realize that.

28 posted on 05/23/2003 11:43:17 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Exactly, The German people bought the whole Nazi Bill of Goods and most happily turned in their Jewish neighbors, said nothing during Kristalnaacht. Millions of Germans were responsible for the Nazi's. "We were just following orders..." they all said. "We didn't know about the Holocaust...."

Barbarians once. Barbarians still- albiet very clever ones.

There is a special place in hell for these folks.
29 posted on 05/23/2003 11:48:47 AM PDT by ffusco (Maecilius Fuscus, Governor of Longovicium , Manchester, England. 238-244 AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
(from the article) the judge who gave Hitler a ludicrously short prison sentence
after he committed high treason at the Beer Hall Putsch.


Also, no mention of the Nazi legislators doing an en-masse walk-out to disrupt
the government...just like those Texas Democrats.

Bet that wasn't the picture the producer of "Hitler: Rise of Evil" wanted the
audience to get!
30 posted on 05/23/2003 11:56:24 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: LS
In a book I have of Nazi laws (Ingo von Münch, Gesetze des NS-Staates,) very much present is the decree of Nov. 11, 1938 against Jews possessing weapons (Verordnung gegen den Waffenbesitz der Juden vom 11. Nov. 1938, Reichsgesetzblatt I p. 1573). If the private possession of weapons had already essentially been outlawed, this decree would have been unnecessary.
31 posted on 05/23/2003 12:07:38 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
bump
32 posted on 05/23/2003 12:17:35 PM PDT by Jason_b (moo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
I'm going to have to read this book, as I said, because the Jewish pro-gun group has referred to this law many times and there is considerable controversy in historical circles if it is a genuine law or an "urban legend." I'll see what Halbrook says.
33 posted on 05/23/2003 1:19:29 PM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
That is quite possibly the most disturbing picture I have ever seen. I'm not going to sleep for a week. Thanks a lot.
34 posted on 05/23/2003 1:56:08 PM PDT by YoungHickey ("Ye shall know the truth, and it shall make you mad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Thanks for this post.

I know (well) two of the people at the heart of the JPFO project to translate the Weimar and Nazi weapons laws. They also cooperated on a book about 20th century genocides in other countries. They have emphasized to me, time and time again, that the actual danger of gun control is not at the time of enactment, when a generally reasonable government is enacting the controls for some "reasonable" purpose. No, the true danger comes later, when a tyrant acquires sufficient power to get access to the information so freely given to a trusted government and to enforce the laws (usually through emergency decrees).

The 1928 Weimar Republic registration law gave the Nazis, once they assumed power, enough information to disarm most of their actual and potential opponents. Similar laws in other countries gave the Nazis a perfect tool to quash resistance, once the Wehrmacht had defeated the defending armed forces thereby allowing the Gestapo access to the police stations.

The historical lesson is: don't EVER let registration happen, because inevitably some person or group with no morality of any kind or respect for the rule of law will come to power. He or they will use everything at his/their disposal to destroy opposition, and a list of who has which guns and where they live is the most valuable information such people could ever acquire.

I, as someone who lost many relatives in the Shoah (a.k.a. Holocaust) will not allow myself to be disarmed. Ever. Period. I know all too well what happens to Jews who have no guns. One of my wife's close relatives, whom I have had the privilege of getting to know well, survived Bergen-Belsen, and has the tatoo to prove it (though he doesn't talk about it much). He saw his father and brother killed, and lost his whole family. He has lots of guns, including at least one full-auto Uzi, and always has at least one gun with him. I'll take my lessons from him.

If I somehow lose my guns, I WILL acquire more, even if I have to hit someone over the head with a rock, brick or baseball bat (let's see them outlaw those). With regard to what to do with a single gun against a tyrannical regime, the following threads are, shall we say, interesting:

What good can a handgun do against an Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37519eb3511d.htm

What good can a handgun do against an Army? Thread II
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a38fcb918771f.htm

What good can a handgun do against an Army? Thread III
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3b8a3ddb4869.htm
35 posted on 05/23/2003 1:57:59 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The wandervoegle as far as I have read was NOT a homosexual
organization but was comprised of youth of both sexes and
was made up of many various groups.

Camping and treking was a favorite of German youth, quite a few of which were killed in the Kindermord on the western front WW I.

"I love to go a wandering among the trees so green........"
36 posted on 05/23/2003 1:59:24 PM PDT by tet68 (Jeremiah 51:24 ..."..Before your eyes I will repay Babylon for all the wrong they have done in Zion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss
In Mein Kampf he argued the case for Britain to be Germany's natural ally.The Nazi's were also,for an unknown reason,begging for a treaty before they bombed London,but the Brits refused.

Thins would've turned out quite differently if a treaty between the two were signed.
37 posted on 05/23/2003 2:31:38 PM PDT by armed_in_sydney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: VOA
>Bet that wasn't the picture the producer of "Hitler: Rise of Evil" wanted the audience to get!

Hitler -- and NAZI
power in general -- got
financial support

from lots of strange "friends."
That probably was out of bounds
for a TV film.

38 posted on 05/23/2003 2:37:29 PM PDT by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
While I used to believe in the theory that an armed populace was an effective guard against tyranny, I'm rethinking that position. It appears that modern tanks and APCs, helicopter gunships, precision weapons, body armor and small unit tactics have been quite successful in overcoming any armed resistance on the ground in Iraq. I would think that a disorganized rabble with hunting rifles would be even easier to overcome than the Iraqi armed forces.

In fact, it may be that democracy is at an end. The basic premise of democracy is that by counting heads you can more or less approximate the outcome of an armed conflict. For the past couple centuries, the amount of manpower on the battle field was a rough determinant of success.

It now appears that highly skilled, very well trained, and very expensively equipped manpower determine the outcome of battle. This returns us to the situation which prevailed when the armored knight ruled the battlefield.

Therefore, I would expect democracy to decline and something more similar to feudalism to flourish.

39 posted on 05/23/2003 3:19:50 PM PDT by Lessismore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
I know all too well what happens to Jews who have no guns.

Well, in this case, friends will gladly lend you some to tide you over.

;^)

40 posted on 05/23/2003 3:42:00 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Lessismore; Jeff Head; harpseal; Squantos; wardaddy; archy; Mulder; Noumenon
I would think that a disorganized rabble with hunting rifles would be even easier to overcome than the Iraqi armed forces.

Very ineresting reply, worthy of its own thread some day. I only highlighted one key line among many. Some thoughts:

The disorganized part is the key to the effectiveness (at least initially) of any hypothetical resistance movement in this era. Attempts to coordinate efforts will only lead to everyone involved being rounded up.

"Rabble" is an interesting word. If you include doctors, scientists, writers, military officers, engineers etc, it may prove to be quite a talented "rabble."

The aim of such resistance would not be to overcome the "occupational" army by force of arms. Remember, in this country, on our home turf, the "rabble" can wear the same suit or uniform as the oppressor and infiltrate almost any area with an appropriate weapon, from a pistol to a long range rifle. The oppressor will not be able to live a normal life, they will be forced to live on closed bases etc.

The point of such resistance would be to make the price so high and painful to themselves personally that they would be deterred from crossing any final red lines, such as civilian disarmament.

An armed American citizenry, as called for in the 2nd Amd, is every bit a deterrent to tyranny as our nukes were to the Soviet Union. Sure, the "rabble" might no be able to overcome a modern military, but the tyrants will be unable to enjoy the fruits of their oppression while running from armored limosine to bunker, feeling the touch of the crosshair on their necks every time they step out into the light of day.

41 posted on 05/23/2003 3:56:52 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
BTTT
42 posted on 05/23/2003 5:17:58 PM PDT by wardaddy (Your momma said I was a loser, a deadend cruiser and deep inside I knew that she was right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Remember when american forces arrive they are hardly occupying. The fact that afganistan and iraqi civilians greeted us with open arms only supports the point that an armed citizenry defeats an occupation force.

Besides, after any natural disaster, an armed citizenry is really really really good against looters.
43 posted on 05/23/2003 7:11:02 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tet68
It was a HAVEN for homosexuals. It was a source of recruiting for homosexual preditors.
44 posted on 05/23/2003 7:22:38 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I agree. If I used "occupation" it was only in a loose way.
45 posted on 05/23/2003 7:24:46 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
The aim of such resistance would not be to overcome the "occupational" army by force of arms. Remember, in this country, on our home turf, the "rabble" can wear the same suit or uniform as the oppressor and infiltrate almost any area with an appropriate weapon, from a pistol to a long range rifle.

Add to that the fact some of those 'rabble' understand that firearms are not the only means by which lessons can be taught and means can be achieved. There are als omany lessons, and many ways in which they may be 'taught'. To paraphrase one of William Gibson's characters - "When they're expecting high tech, hit 'em with low tech." And vice versa. Sun Tzu, Sun Pin and Martin van Creveld make for interesting reading.

46 posted on 05/23/2003 7:26:25 PM PDT by Noumenon (Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesnít go away. --Philip K. Dick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon
For example, 'rat stronghold urban centers will be no fun without power and water.
47 posted on 05/23/2003 7:39:39 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Something as simple as a burning, diesel-soaked matterss tossed off the back of a disposable pickup truck during rush hour on oh, say, both directions of the 520 Bridge in Seattle would be a real buzzkill.
48 posted on 05/23/2003 7:42:27 PM PDT by Noumenon (Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesnít go away. --Philip K. Dick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon
Yep, chronic gridlock would get real old. When I was reading up for my book, I read some things about one of my fictional targets, the I-495 Wilson Bridge (at 6 oclock on the DC Beltway over the Potomac).

A few years ago a "jumper" sat on a high railing all day, and they shut the bridge down in both directions for about 6 hours.

It caused all of DC to crunch to a halt, all the way around the beltway and every street inside. Newspaper articles refered to it as "the mother of all gridlock". They changed the policy to virtually encouraging jumpers to jump, as long as the traffic kept moving.

49 posted on 05/23/2003 7:49:12 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Lessismore; Travis McGee; harpseal; Noumenon; Lurker; Chapita; sneakypete
The army of Iraq was a surrender waiting to happen. They were more afreaid of Saddam and the Ba'athists than they were of us. That is the principle reason they were so easily overcome.

In addition to that, we were able to establish clear and protected logistic lines, mostly without harrassment, extending over thousands of miles to the battle front.

In an environment where the second amendment had to come into play in America, these principle issues would not apply at all in the way they did in Iraq.

1st, people would fight if they thought their liberties were being threatened. They would do so, not out of fear of a tyrant behind them, but out of love for their own freedoms and that of their families. A much different motivation that would lead to much more bitter and spirited resistance.

Second, there would be no front lines. Members of the very force being used to try and supress the population (if it were our own forces called upon to do so) would turn. Similar to the days before the civil war, when military units broke down and each went their way to fight on one side or the other, unit cohesion would break down resulting in many of the trained "professionals" and their equipment siding with the "rabble".

Finally, when there are ten million long-range hunting rifles involved against the organized forces who have to be surrounded by those rifles all the time ... there would be no front lines. Logistical lines would become next to impossible to maintain and the organized forces, as Travis McGee said, would find themselves under a constant state of siege. Certainly able to win any set engagement with an agressor force, but unable to so much as come out of their tank or base to take a leak without fear of death hanging over them ... also unable to refuel, maintain equipment, sleep, etc. without fear of the same.

For these reasons, the comaprison to the marvelous job our forces did in Iraq is not an accurate one when contemplating such warfare here where 80+ million potential "rabble" are already well armed. Such numbers would swallow up a force like what we have sent into Iraq ... not without significant cost certainly, but swallow up just the same.

They would need a well provisioned force of many millions, who practiced a Sherman type mentality, razing the land in their wake, to be able to effectively fight it. Our own people will not do this ... and if they brought in foreign forces to do so ... our own people (all that high tech) would fight against it and have the support of the 80+ million while so doing.

Best regards.

Jeff

50 posted on 05/24/2003 7:20:35 AM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-219 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson