Pages

27 comments

Jump to bottom
1 Buck  Sat, Jan 12, 2013 12:12:19pm

Nazi Germany Gun law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question”.

Yes, friends of the regime did get to keep their guns.

However, the targets of the Nazis had their guns confiscated and were not given permits.

That is gun control by any definition.

2 William Barnett-Lewis  Sat, Jan 12, 2013 12:33:34pm

Oh. please.

After the Communist & Fascist street wars following WWI, the Wiemar Republic instituted real gun control on everyone. They wanted all military weapons off the street.

After the Nazis took power, they decreased those gun regulations for all German citizens and relaxed those that remained for party members. They loved using phrases like yours just like the far right in America does.

Non-Aryans were non-citizens, remember?

But hey, you’ve never let facts get in your way before, so why should I think you would now?

3 Buck  Sat, Jan 12, 2013 12:38:21pm
they decreased those gun regulations for all German citizens

I guess we disagree on who were citizens.

If you were a Jew, Gay, a Gypsy or any one else that were targeted by the Nazi’s then your trustworthiness was in question.

You didn’t get a permit to hold a gun.

These are the facts.

4 William Barnett-Lewis  Sat, Jan 12, 2013 12:54:08pm

Thank you for agreeing with me.

5 Buck  Sat, Jan 12, 2013 1:30:16pm

You seem to state both sides.

The Nazis DID institute Gun Control in order to disarm their enemies and arm their friends.

That is not a Gun Control lie.

The Nazis did confiscate the guns of the people they targeted, Jews being only one example.

That is not agreeing with your “didn’t confiscate guns”.

So I don’t know what you think I am saying.

6 palomino  Sat, Jan 12, 2013 6:01:42pm

re: #5 Buck

You seem to state both sides.

The Nazis DID institute Gun Control in order to disarm their enemies and arm their friends.

That is not a Gun Control lie.

The Nazis did confiscate the guns of the people they targeted, Jews being only one example.

That is not agreeing with your “didn’t confiscate guns”.

So I don’t know what you think I am saying.

So if the Jews had more guns, then no Holocaust? And I suppose that if French civilians were better armed, then the Nazis never would have taken Paris.

Your posts lack context; here it is: the NRA and their militant pro-gun allies contend that gun control leads to tyranny, dictatorship and mass murder by the state. They cite Hitler as an example, as if every evil deed of the Third Reich flowed directly from disarming civilians. Simultaneously these same NRA “scholars” completely ignore the modern day examples of Canada, Australia, Japan, most of Europe, etc, ie, the developed world…all of which currently have stricter gun control laws than we do, much lower rates of firearm homicide than we do, and aren’t in any way approaching Nazi Germany. Their argument is specious, illogical and conflates temporal co-existence with causation. It’s bullshit, as the referenced article above shows clearly…but it’s a live-or-die article of faith among America’s gun fanatics, who see any regulation of firearms as intolerable, the first step on a slippery slope toward Nazism or some other totalitarian regime. It’s hysterical and apocalyptic thinking, useless in the discourse of a modern democracy.

7 Buck  Sat, Jan 12, 2013 6:20:14pm

re: #6 palomino

So if the Jews had more guns, then no Holocaust? And I suppose that if French civilians were better armed, then the Nazis never would have taken Paris.

What does that have to do with anything? You can’t justify saying that Nazi Germany had no gun control because it wouldn’t have stopped the holocaust anyway.

Was there gun control in Nazi Germany? Yes there was. It was in the form of only allowing guns for people the regime thought had unquestioned trustworthiness. How do you measure trustworthiness? Well sometimes it was sexual, sometimes it was racial. HOWEVER it was a serious and documented form of control over who had guns.

Only friends of the regime get to keep their guns.
The targets of the Nazis had their guns confiscated and were not given permits.

That is gun control by any definition.

Nothing to do with the NRA, or the NBA, or the BNA.

The Nazis DID institute Gun Control in order to disarm their enemies and arm their friends.

That is not a Gun Control lie.

The Nazis did confiscate the guns of the people they targeted, Jews being only one example.

That is not “didn’t confiscate guns”.

Don’t take it personally. Look up the wording of the law.

8 subterraneanhomesickalien  Sat, Jan 12, 2013 7:03:38pm

re: #1 Buck

Oh fuck you.

If anymore evidence is needed that you are just a wingnut in moderate drag than this sort of shit is it.

9 Buck  Sat, Jan 12, 2013 7:04:40pm

Seriously, you are downdinging the truth because you don’t like to hear the truth.

The supposed enemies of the Nazi regime were not allowed to have guns. They were banned from having guns. Their guns were confiscated.

As a dictator you only want to disarm you enemies. You want your friends and supporters to have guns, so that they might use them on your enemies.

Downdings to me are like water on the back of a duck.

10 William Barnett-Lewis  Sat, Jan 12, 2013 7:48:36pm

Buck you’re an even bigger idiot than I thought and that’s saying a hell of a lot. Civilian owned firearms make no difference. It takes military grade firearms, high explosives and outside support for a successful insurgency.

Even with those things it’s hardly a sure thing.

Now please stop spewing NRA lies.

11 Buck  Sat, Jan 12, 2013 8:49:38pm

Who is talking about insurgency? What does that have to do with Nazis and gun control.

12 William Barnett-Lewis  Sat, Jan 12, 2013 10:30:33pm

re: #11 Buck

Who is talking about insurgency? What does that have to do with Nazis and gun control.

I try not to down ding simply because I disagree. But that comment is so disingenuous that it earns it.

Please. Grow the fuck up.

13 stockoneder  Sun, Jan 13, 2013 5:21:48am

This is why you need an “assault weapon!”

Go here for full explanation [Link: righttoreason.blogspot…….]

Read the ‘More on Guns’ post. Best argument out there!

14 Coracle  Sun, Jan 13, 2013 11:18:47am

re: #13 stockoneder

This is why you need an “assault weapon!”

Go here for full explanation [Link: righttoreason.blogspot…….]

Read the ‘More on Guns’ post. Best argument out there!

Whoever writes that blog is certifiable. He basically says you can - and must - ignore any law you don’t like; that laws and social contracts of society mean absolutely nothing. He believes in anarchy and rule of personal might. That is fundamentally unstable and uncivilized, not to mention inherently un-American.

15 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jan 13, 2013 12:08:26pm

I love it - the crazy wingnut dead thread link bomb, but with a non-functioning link. Doesn’t get better than this.

16 blueraven  Sun, Jan 13, 2013 1:41:21pm

re: #13 stockoneder

This is why you need an “assault weapon!”

Go here for full explanation [Link: righttoreason.blogspot…….]

Read the ‘More on Guns’ post. Best argument out there!

Good Lord…there is some weapons grade crazy on that blog aside from the really obnoxious gun posts.

Abraham Lincoln is the “thug in chief”
Secession
Gold!!
voting is immoral!
supporting links to lew rockwell and von Mises institute

Not recommended!

17 lawhawk  Sun, Jan 13, 2013 1:59:24pm

re: #3 Buck

The original Weimar Republic constitution from 1919 provided no right to arms, and later the 1928 regulations were about limiting firearms that could fall into the hands of Communists and Nazis - the two biggest factions that were intent upon violence.

The laws didn’t prevent the Nazi rise, and the Nazis ended up modifying the laws in several significant ways with the 1938 gun control law. In some respects, the opened up firearms ownership to more people, but specifically excluded Jews.

But by 1938 Jews were being systematically and ruthlessly drummed out of society in every way imaginable. Any firearm regulation targeting Jews was only adding insult to injury as the Nuremberg laws of 1935 were far more harmful to Jewish rights than the gun control law in 1938. Stripping ownership rights to property, operating businesses, and further segregating the Jewish population from their non-Jewish neighbors.

And to give further sauce to the goose, Kristallnacht occurred before the gun control law was passed.

November 11, 1938 - when the Nazis passed the law specifically prohibiting Jews from firearms ownership.

Kristallnacht - November 9-10, 1938. It was used in part as an excuse to expand the Nuremberg laws and pass the gun control act against Jewish ownership specifically.

18 palomino  Sun, Jan 13, 2013 5:00:23pm

re: #7 Buck

What does that have to do with anything? You can’t justify saying that Nazi Germany had no gun control because it wouldn’t have stopped the holocaust anyway.

Was there gun control in Nazi Germany? Yes there was. It was in the form of only allowing guns for people the regime thought had unquestioned trustworthiness. How do you measure trustworthiness? Well sometimes it was sexual, sometimes it was racial. HOWEVER it was a serious and documented form of control over who had guns.

Only friends of the regime get to keep their guns.
The targets of the Nazis had their guns confiscated and were not given permits.

That is gun control by any definition.

Nothing to do with the NRA, or the NBA, or the BNA.

The Nazis DID institute Gun Control in order to disarm their enemies and arm their friends.

That is not a Gun Control lie.

The Nazis did confiscate the guns of the people they targeted, Jews being only one example.

That is not “didn’t confiscate guns”.

Don’t take it personally. Look up the wording of the law.

Again, you completely miss the point: that you have not considered the contemporary context of the Hitler Gun Control argument. Of course Hitler didn’t want people he saw as his enemies to have guns. So what in the modern context of American school, movie theater, restaurant, shopping mall, etc. mass public shootings?

Maybe you’re such a useful tool that you don’t even consider the agenda of those making the Hitler Gun Control argument. Some are deluded enough to think armed civilian German Jews could have prevented the Holocaust. But the real gist of the NRA’s constant repetition of the Nazi Gun Control meme is that the US is headed toward a tyrannical dictatorship if even a few models of guns (assault rifles, specifically) are prohibited. This is one of the most common logical flaws one finds in historical analysis—often referred to as post hoc ergo propter hoc. The relatively close occurrence of two events doesn’t not mean one caused the other, i.e., the partial gun ban in German does imply causation regarding the crimes of the Third Reich. Similarly, the notion that any small gun regulations will put America on the path to Nazism (or some other form of totalitarianism) is a RW fantasy unsupported by much of anything—no facts, logic or strong historical analogies. It’s a useless talking point that you seem happy to mindlessly repeat.

19 Buck  Sun, Jan 13, 2013 6:17:49pm

re: #17 lawhawk

In some respects, the opened up firearms ownership to more people, but specifically excluded Jews.

It is not like you to go on and on so far off subject.

By restricting ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question”. The Nazis DID institute Gun Control in order to disarm their enemies and arm their friends.

True or False?

The Nazis did confiscate the guns of the people they targeted, Jews being only one example.

True or false?

20 Buck  Sun, Jan 13, 2013 6:22:34pm

re: #18 palomino

Maybe you’re such a useful tool that you don’t even consider the agenda of those making the Hitler Gun Control argument.

Their agenda does not make it untrue. You want to discuss their agenda? Let us put up a post about that.

It is a lie to deny the fact that Hitler brought in a form of gun control, where he disarmed the people he targeted and armed his friends.

I suppose everyone has an agenda. But that is not what I am talking about.

21 palomino  Sun, Jan 13, 2013 6:30:21pm

re: #19 Buck

It is not like you to go on and on so far off subject.

By restricting ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question”. The Nazis DID institute Gun Control in order to disarm their enemies and arm their friends.

True or False?

The Nazis did confiscate the guns of the people they targeted, Jews being only one example.

True or false?

But the POINT of all this is that the NRA and affiliated groups claim the same type of gun confiscation is beginning in the US, and may lead to the death of American democracy and the rise of a Hitlerian or Stalinist dictatorship.

Such a POV isn’t based on facts. There is no ethnic or racial group being targeted in the US for disarmament. Furthermore, the restrictions under consideration involve only a few models of firearms, namely the most lethal assault rifles. All other guns would continue to be available, and of course to all ethnic, racial, etc. groups. Thus the analogy of today’s America and Third Reich Germany is not appropos; rather it’s a scare tactic devoid of substance.

22 Buck  Sun, Jan 13, 2013 6:46:58pm

re: #21 palomino

But the POINT of all this is that the NRA and affiliated groups claim the same type of gun confiscation is beginning in the US, and may lead to the death of American democracy and the rise of a Hitlerian or Stalinist dictatorship.

So to make your counterpoint it is necessary to rewrite the history of Nazi Germany? Somehow you think that making Hitler out to be an enemy of gun control (even if it is untrue) will make gun control more favorable to the NRA.

You are correct, I didn’t know what the point was

23 palomino  Sun, Jan 13, 2013 6:47:27pm

re: #20 Buck

Their agenda does not make it untrue. You want to discuss their agenda? Let us put up a post about that.

It is a lie to deny the fact that Hitler brought in a form of gun control, where he disarmed the people he targeted and armed his friends.

I suppose everyone has an agenda. But that is not what I am talking about.

That’s what this post IS about. For whatever reason, you seem to lack the ability to recognize the context and implications regarding today’s gun debate as filtered through revisionist history about Hitler’s rise to power and the Holocaust being somehow predicated on his absolutist gun control policies. As you know, most civil rights for German Jews were denied much earlier than 1938, and codified by the Nuremburg Laws of 1934. Thus the idea that gun control was an integral part of the Third Reich’s rise to power is an absurd trope used by the opponents of any gun control.

24 palomino  Sun, Jan 13, 2013 6:56:01pm

re: #22 Buck

So to make your counterpoint it is necessary to rewrite the history of Nazi Germany? Somehow you think that making Hitler out to be an enemy of gun control (even if it is untrue) will make gun control more favorable to the NRA.

You are correct, I didn’t know what the point was

I’m not rewriting Nazi Germany’s history to point out that gun control was not a significant factor allowing the Third Reich to seize power. And that is exactly what the pro-gun forces in the US argue today: that somehow gun control laws ruined any possibility to stop Hitler.

Furthermore, I haven’t once disputed your contention that the 1938 law was a form of gun control. What I dispute is your obsessive focus on forest over trees, your lack of incorporating any of this into the contemporary context of discourse over gun control in the US, i.e., your refusal to acknowledge that the 1938 law is being used disingenously by pro-gun forces to scare Americans into thinking that assault rifles with huge magazines are the only way to prevent the rise of an American Third Reich. Such “argumentation” by the NRA is irresponsible hyperbole.

25 Cankles McCellulite  Sun, Jan 13, 2013 7:08:02pm

Yep. Having some restrictions on SOME guns is EXACTLY the same as what Hitler did. EXACTLY!!!111!!!!

26 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Jan 13, 2013 7:53:26pm

re: #13 stockoneder

I’m more inclined to think someone who titles a blog post “All government employees are parasites” a lunatic than i am to agree with him.

27 Varek Raith  Mon, Jan 14, 2013 12:18:34am

re: #1 Buck

This is in no way comparable to the US now, you twit.
God, you’re one paranoid wingnut.
I guess Canada is full on fascist in your mind with its gun laws, eh?


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

TwitterFacebook

Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day (per month) or 22 cents a day (per year), our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...

► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form
LGF Pages

This button leads to the main index of LGF Pages, our user-submitted articles. You can post your own LGF Pages simply by registering a free account with us.

Create a Page

This is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.

Last updated: 2014-03-07 2:19 pm PST

LGF User's Guide
Recent Pages
cycroft
Russ Campbell’s Blog: Has US Foreign Policy Record Ever Been Weaker?
When Pres­i­dent Barack Obama re­placed Hillary Clin­ton on Feb­ru­ary 1, 2013 with John Kerry as his Sec­re­tary of State, he ef­fec­tively re­moved the last ves­tige of ef­fec­tive U.S. for­eign pol­icy. This is not to say that Hillary Clin­ton was ...

30 minutes ago
Views: 22 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
KiTA
Hannity throws Bundy under the bus
Well, this was surprising. Hannity: Bundy's comments "are beyond repugnant to me. They are beyond despicable to me. They are beyond ignorant to me," Hannity said during his radio show. He then turned his anger toward Democrats who would use ...

44 minutes ago
Views: 65 • Comments: 3
Tweets: 2 • Rating: 1
palmerskiss
On Gay Rights, South Africa Offers a Model for the Rest of the Continent
But Cape Town's gay village doesn't, wouldn't, and couldn't exist in any other country on this continent, the majority of which outlaw homosexuality. Some have seen a recent increase in penalties for homosexual acts. In these places gay people ...

55 minutes ago
Views: 30 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
Randall Gross
Elisa Kreisinger on Fair Use(r): Art and Copyright Online
This starts with a couple of examples of her pop culture mashup/remixes, both of which I found piteously boring (yep, there's me being an art critic without the attitude, paying my dues, or any training...) if you want to ...

3 hours, 56 minutes ago
Views: 51 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
FemNaziBitch
FLORIDA: Sex Trafficking Bill Clears House on Unanimous Vote
A bill aimed at responding to sex trafficking, with a laundry list of services and safety precautions to protect victims, passed the Florida House of Representatives on Tuesday with a unanimous 119-0 vote. The bill, if passed by the ...

1 day, 2 hours ago
Views: 126 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
Skip Intro
Tea Party Candidate Curt Clawson Wins Republican Primary to Replace Former Rep. Trey Radel
Curt Clawson, a businessman who was little known months ago in Southwest Florida, won a contentious GOP primary Tuesday to fill the U.S. House seat left open by the scandalous downfall of Trey Radel. Clawson pitched himself as an ...

1 day, 19 hours ago
Views: 267 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 7 • Rating: 0
MichaelJ
2014 Rip Curl Pro Bells Beach - ASP - Finals Day!
More: 2014 Rip Curl Pro Bells Beach - ASP The women's final is in the water now and the men's quarterfinals begin after a champion is crowned. Bells beach is delivering the goods today with clean conditions for the ...

1 day, 20 hours ago
Views: 91 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 0
Political Atheist
NYT Story-American Middle Class Is No Longer the World’s Richest
After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada -- substantially behind in 2000 -- now appear to be higher than in the United States. The poor in much of Europe earn more than poor Americans. The income data were compiled by LIS, ...

2 days ago
Views: 188 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2
Idle Drifter
Calgary stabbings: How knife crime in Canada can cause ‘moral panic’
What Calgary police chief Rick Hanson called the "worst mass murder" in the city's history didn't end at the barrel of a gun. Instead, the 22-year-old suspect identified on Tuesday as Matthew de Grood is accused of entering the kitchen ...

1 week ago
Views: 418 • Comments: 6
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
aagcobb
New York Electoral College: State Joins National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Ben Mathis-Lilley, Slate: New York Electoral College: State Joins National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Instead of pushing for a Constitutional amendment, which would have to be ratified in 38 states, advocates ask individual state legislatures to pass an agreement: that ...

1 week ago
Views: 398 • Comments: 8
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2
 Frank says:

Why do you necessarily have to be wrong just because a few million people think you are?