Anonymous wrote:

In his 1994 book, NRA head Wayne LaPierre dwelled on the Hitler meme at length, writing: “In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolf Hitler.”

And it makes a certain amount of intuitive sense: If you’re going to impose a brutal authoritarian regime on your populace, better to disarm them first so they can’t fight back.

Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/
Wow just ....whatever at least the NRA leadership make money on you losers.

Anonymous wrote:

In his 1994 book, NRA head Wayne LaPierre dwelled on the Hitler meme at length, writing: “In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolf Hitler.”

And it makes a certain amount of intuitive sense: If you’re going to impose a brutal authoritarian regime on your populace, better to disarm them first so they can’t fight back.

Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/
Wow just ....whatever at least the NRA leadership make money on you losers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its controversial because it isn't true. Minority populations and one minority population in particular could not defend themselves against the Nazi's because of the fascist, nationalist, jingoist sentiment of the majority population in that time and place. Whole countries with whole armies couldn't defend themselves against it and were taken over. Armed Jews would not have solved the problem that was Nazism. A completely ridiculous thing to have said and an entirely warped way to try to oppose gun control.

But one country did defend themselves, and the other countries as well, namely America. And they brought guns.

This seems to be an academic exercise only and I think there are more susbstantial grounds to oppose BC. Having said that though, the path to genocide is paved by this:
1) hate of a minority
2) fear of those who are different than you
3) an economic crisis or war that promotes fear and sense of massive loss of sense of security on part of most of the population
3) demogoguery that exploits 1, 2.3 above

Lastly, the steps leading to the establishment of the dealth camps that killed 6 million jews started with the publication of Mein Kamf in ( 1929 ?) , accellerated wit Hitler's election to the chancellory of Germany despite having written his plans in Mein Kamf, and then his progressive take over of one country after the next, Crystalnacht happened as well and the armed population of America, sat there and watched and DID NOTHING . We did nothing in 1939, nothing in 1940 even though it was well known.

We entered the death camps in 1944 as the Germans retreated so having the guns didn't change a thing

We lacked moral courgae then and we lack it now .

The proof : we wont stand up to the gun lobby and ban these weapons

Why would we arm people who scream death to America and who attacked us multiple times on our own land?

If you want to keep on touting the 2nd Amendment as a universal right then you have no choice but to allow American Muslims to keep and bear arms too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its controversial because it isn't true. Minority populations and one minority population in particular could not defend themselves against the Nazi's because of the fascist, nationalist, jingoist sentiment of the majority population in that time and place. Whole countries with whole armies couldn't defend themselves against it and were taken over. Armed Jews would not have solved the problem that was Nazism. A completely ridiculous thing to have said and an entirely warped way to try to oppose gun control.

But one country did defend themselves, and the other countries as well, namely America. And they brought guns.

This seems to be an academic exercise only and I think there are more susbstantial grounds to oppose BC. Having said that though, the path to genocide is paved by this:
1) hate of a minority
2) fear of those who are different than you
3) an economic crisis or war that promotes fear and sense of massive loss of sense of security on part of most of the population
3) demogoguery that exploits 1, 2.3 above

Lastly, the steps leading to the establishment of the dealth camps that killed 6 million jews started with the publication of Mein Kamf in ( 1929 ?) , accellerated wit Hitler's election to the chancellory of Germany despite having written his plans in Mein Kamf, and then his progressive take over of one country after the next, Crystalnacht happened as well and the armed population of America, sat there and watched and DID NOTHING . We did nothing in 1939, nothing in 1940 even though it was well known.

We entered the death camps in 1944 as the Germans retreated so having the guns didn't change a thing

We lacked moral courgae then and we lack it now .

The proof : we wont stand up to the gun lobby and ban these weapons

Why would we arm people who scream death to America and who attacked us multiple times on our own land?

In his 1994 book, NRA head Wayne LaPierre dwelled on the Hitler meme at length, writing: “In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolf Hitler.”

And it makes a certain amount of intuitive sense: If you’re going to impose a brutal authoritarian regime on your populace, better to disarm them first so they can’t fight back.

Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

Anonymous wrote:

Take a look at all the 'heavily legislate or take all the guns before we all die' messages on this forum, and you can see plainly why it was critical for the Nazis to make sure Jews weren't armed in quantity.

It took the Nazis 6 weeks to finally kill the last Jew in Warsaw - resisting with the few weapons they did

Please learn history. You are regurgitating NRA talking points that are not based in fact.

Take a look at all the 'heavily legislate or take all the guns before we all die' messages on this forum, and you can see plainly why it was critical for the Nazis to make sure Jews weren't armed in quantity.

It took the Nazis 6 weeks to finally kill the last Jew in Warsaw - resisting with the few weapons they did

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its controversial because it isn't true. Minority populations and one minority population in particular could not defend themselves against the Nazi's because of the fascist, nationalist, jingoist sentiment of the majority population in that time and place. Whole countries with whole armies couldn't defend themselves against it and were taken over. Armed Jews would not have solved the problem that was Nazism. A completely ridiculous thing to have said and an entirely warped way to try to oppose gun control.

But one country did defend themselves, and the other countries as well, namely America. And they brought guns.

This seems to be an academic exercise only and I think there are more susbstantial grounds to oppose BC. Having said that though, the path to genocide is paved by this:
1) hate of a minority
2) fear of those who are different than you
3) an economic crisis or war that promotes fear and sense of massive loss of sense of security on part of most of the population
3) demogoguery that exploits 1, 2.3 above

Lastly, the steps leading to the establishment of the dealth camps that killed 6 million jews started with the publication of Mein Kamf in ( 1929 ?) , accellerated wit Hitler's election to the chancellory of Germany despite having written his plans in Mein Kamf, and then his progressive take over of one country after the next, Crystalnacht happened as well and the armed population of America, sat there and watched and DID NOTHING . We did nothing in 1939, nothing in 1940 even though it was well known.

We entered the death camps in 1944 as the Germans retreated so having the guns didn't change a thing

We lacked moral courgae then and we lack it now .

The proof : we wont stand up to the gun lobby and ban these weapons

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its controversial because it isn't true. Minority populations and one minority population in particular could not defend themselves against the Nazi's because of the fascist, nationalist, jingoist sentiment of the majority population in that time and place. Whole countries with whole armies couldn't defend themselves against it and were taken over. Armed Jews would not have solved the problem that was Nazism. A completely ridiculous thing to have said and an entirely warped way to try to oppose gun control.

But one country did defend themselves, and the other countries as well, namely America. And they brought guns.

This seems to be an academic exercise only and I think there are more susbstantial grounds to oppose BC. Having said that though, the path to genocide is paved by this:
1) hate of a minority
2) fear of those who are different than you
3) an economic crisis or war that promotes fear and sense of massive loss of sense of security on part of most of the population
3) demogoguery that exploits 1, 2.3 above

Lastly, the steps leading to the establishment of the dealth camps that killed 6 million jews started with the publication of Mein Kamf in ( 1929 ?) , accellerated wit Hitler's election to the chancellory of Germany despite having written his plans in Mein Kamf, and then his progressive take over of one country after the next, Crystalnacht happened as well and the armed population of America, sat there and watched and DID NOTHING . We did nothing in 1939, nothing in 1940 even though it was well known.

We entered the death camps in 1944 as the Germans retreated so having the guns didn't change a thing

We lacked moral courgae then and we lack it now .

The proof : we wont stand up to the gun lobby and ban these weapons

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its controversial because it isn't true. Minority populations and one minority population in particular could not defend themselves against the Nazi's because of the fascist, nationalist, jingoist sentiment of the majority population in that time and place. Whole countries with whole armies couldn't defend themselves against it and were taken over. Armed Jews would not have solved the problem that was Nazism. A completely ridiculous thing to have said and an entirely warped way to try to oppose gun control.

But one country did defend themselves, and the other countries as well, namely America. And they brought guns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there were some bands of Jews who ended up in forests who were able to defend themselves with guns; but if an army found them in the forest, they would have been killed. End of story.

And they would have died fighting. Preferable.

Exactly.
A friend of mine who is Jewish said that he opposed the riots in Baltimore. To some degree I also opposed them, but he said that civil disobedience was always wrong. I completely disagree. If Jews had done anything different, the outcome could not have been worse that what really happened. Civil disobedience when AH took office would have been the right thing to do.