Lately there has been a large number of mentions of past gun control laws, both in and outside the US. As is usual, the mention of the Nuremberg Gun Control Laws, passed through the Reichstag and signed by Hitler in 1938 is made by those who oppose gun control, because it is effective without actually calling up Godwin’s Law.
It is so effective, it seems, that a handful of those on the left have been doing actual research on that set of laws. However, the point seems to be entirely lost on them:
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.
The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning?
As difficult as it is to explain this degree of stupidity, I am going to give it a try:
Because Hitler only banned certain groups of people from owning firearms, and then used existing records of firearms ownership from previous administrations to then confiscate firearms from these groups before shipping them off to be murdered means the entire argument against bans on the ownership of certain firearms, as well as registration of firearms and their owners means nothing because it would never happen in America.
I do wish I could hold that much faith in those in positions of power. Fortunately, I know my history, which has taught me to not trust anyone with power. Especially if they are doing something “for the children” or “for the greater good.”
Don’t let them get away with it, indeed “urban planning” and the Ghetto are synonymous and equally despicable forms of authoritarian and Statist control.
Hitler probably changed the gun-laws on the surface because it benefited him. He was preparing the legal “battle-space” and re-forming the narrative, while secretly re-arming Germany for his coming war – and he needed the legalistic benefits that the revisions provided, kinda like arming the drug cartels in Fast&Furious…
Or you know stop arguing with 8 year-olds. Where have I heard that before? 🙂
No offense to the former IDF officer, but he seems to be cherry-picking his research to give a certain result.
It SHOULD go without saying that we have a basic Civil Right in this nation to keep and bear arms, and that Civil Right states SPECIFICALLY that the reason for thr Right is to offer the possibility of a check on the power of the Federal Government.
The “discussion” should never get beyond the citation of the wording of the 2A itself, but I note that the “historian” here continues to DENY “never again”, and suggests that the Nazis were all about liberalizing gun possession, when their intent was to disarm the sections of their society which posed the most threat to the Nazi seizure of power, exactly the tactic at work in this Nation.
Please read my posts on Disarming Veterans.