1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Salon: The Hitler Gun Control Lie

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by wlewisiii, Jan 12, 2013.

  1. wlewisiii

    wlewisiii Well-Known Member

    The Hitler gun control lie
    Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong

    "This week, people were shocked when the Drudge Report posted a giant picture of Hitler over a headline speculating that the White House will proceed with executive orders to limit access to firearms. The proposed orders are exceedingly tame, but Drudge’s reaction is actually a common conservative response to any invocation of gun control.

    The NRA, Fox News, Fox News (again), Alex Jones, email chains, Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher, Gun Owners of America, etc., all agree that gun control was critical to Hitler’s rise to power. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (“America’s most aggressive defender of firearms ownership”) is built almost exclusively around this notion, popularizing posters of Hitler giving the Nazi salute next to the text: “All in favor of ‘gun control’ raise your right hand.”

    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."

    More here. http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/
  2. 76shuvlinoff

    76shuvlinoff Well-Known Member

    But Hitler did ban guns for the "Jews and other persecuted classes.." The people he attempted to annihilate. This was not gun control?
  3. Robert

    Robert Moderator

    Meh, so according to him we should ignore the fact that the Nazis did indeed disarm select groups of people in order to better control them? Um ok... The Jews did fight the Nazis, in Warsaw. Yes they lost but they made a hell of a stand that led to the razing of the gehetto.

    And the Russians lost so many men fighting the Germans due to their insane combat style. Rather than fall back and regroup, and make avnew plan in the face of an entrenched defender we will just keep throw human wave after human wave into the MG42s. And if you want a rifle there are plenty laying around comrad, just pick one up.

    While we too often point to a flawed notion of history I am not overly impressed with the article as a whole.
  4. M-Cameron

    M-Cameron member

    so in essence, the author is saying "hey guys, you know that whole history thing....lets all just ignore it because its conflicting with my pre-existing anti-gun ideals"
  5. Robert

    Robert Moderator

    Exactly, and it's not really gun control because it only targeted select groups of people. So unless you are one of those people, gun owners in our case, you have nothing to worry about.
  6. Tinker

    Tinker Well-Known Member

    An article from Salon? Should change thier name to SLANT. :D

    Enough said.
  7. Deanimator

    Deanimator Well-Known Member

    The ONLY reason why someone would not have wanted the Jews of Europe to be armed would be to prevent potential harm to NAZIS.

    Again, we return to the idea that if somebody from "the government" doesn't "protect" you, you have a DUTY to be slaughtered.
  8. longdayjake

    longdayjake Well-Known Member

    Something that hasn't been mentioned yet is that the author of this piece implies that an armed populace still is not enough to fight of a tyrannical army. Well, you talk to anyone who was in Iraq and Afgan and they will tell you that any insurgent that actually took the time to aim was considered a sniper and really demoralized the troops. The type of weapon didn't really matter so long as the shots hit home. Imagine how much harder it would be for an American army to invade an American town where there are thousands of people who know how to aim and they all have AR's or M14's and most everyone has a scoped high powered "hunting" rifle. How long do you think our troops would have lasted in Iraq had that been the case there?
  9. To be fair, we had a very similar discussion here in November:


    I agree with the Salon author that most pro-2A folks that mention Hitler do so without putting it into the context of the history of German weapon laws and merely do so for a convenient emotional response by associating gun control with one of history's most despised personalities.

    As I said in the other thread, "Germany's history of gun control is rather complicated and the Nazi party only had a small part to do with it. The major legislation in 1919, 1920, and 1928 had very significant impact on gun ownership longer before Hitler came to power."
  10. OptimusPrime

    OptimusPrime Well-Known Member

    That article is ridiculously silly. It explains the logical path: a) disarmed the entire population from the end of ww1; b) then expanded gun rights on the eve of massive mobilizations (ww2 started in 39 but Germany was prepared for shooting in case the Czech appeasement didn't go so smooth), but if you we're a party member then it was wide open; c) killed all the "other persecuted classes" who had been disarmed for over 20 years.
    The author actually proved our point, thank you.
    A disarmed population or group has no recourse against the whims of a tyrant in matters small or large. We choose to be governed by laws because that's good for a society; but come tell me to get in the back of a truck and I've got news for you.
  11. Deanimator

    Deanimator Well-Known Member

    There used to be a retired BATF agent who posted a lot in the political groups in usenet. He'd written a vanity book about his macho exploits in the BATF.

    One day, he made the TRAGIC mistake of defending the Gun Control Act of 1968 after someone rightly pointed out the fact that it was modeled on the Nazi gun control law. In fact, not only did he defend the GCA 68, he defended the NAZI gun control law. He said, "Any German citizen could own a gun."

    I have a cruel streak of which I'm quite proud, so I just asked, "Were Jews 'German citizens'?"

    No answer. So I asked again... and again, and again, for WEEKS until he finally answered, "No."

    Then giving the knife a final delicious twist, I asked, "So, why do you SUPPORT a law which disarmed Jews, but NOT the Nazis who wanted to slaughter them?"

    He never answered THAT one. It's been over ten years without a reply.

    Scratch an anti-gunner, find a Klansman... or a Nazi.
  12. Greenmachin3

    Greenmachin3 Well-Known Member

    Ottoman Empire: Armenian Genocide. Conscript all Armenian men of age into military. Segregate them and put them in labor camps instead of military service. Call Armenians threats to national security even though they are legitimate people of the empire and pass a law that disarms them. With all men of fighting age in work camps, extermination of the remaining disarmed people was easy.

    What Hitler did was very similar. How is this even debatable? The balls of that article saying disarmament meant no difference. Oh yeah? Just look at the Bieslki Partisans in Poland. They were able to fight, and they did. Wherever people were willing and able to fight, they did.
  13. WVsig

    WVsig Well-Known Member

    If you do not know your past then you don't know your future..... :eek:
  14. Greenmachin3

    Greenmachin3 Well-Known Member


    Fair enough. I agree that it is rather an emotional button to associate gun control with Hitler.

    On the other hand, it was the gun control that allowed the exploitation. And I think that's the major point here. If infringement occurs the way they're proposing, does that leave the door open for a future president or political leader to exploit it? I think so.
  15. kwguy

    kwguy Well-Known Member

    Exactly ^^^ (post #10). What kind of revisionist nonsense is that? Gun control for the Jews only is not "really" gun control (wink wink), because the nazi's were still allowed to have them?! Really?! Wow.
  16. kwguy

    kwguy Well-Known Member

    You know, I just realized, the tools of the 2A (firearms) are always under attack because those tools are misused by a small criminal portion of the population. However, the tools of the 1st Amendment, the press, media, etc, are misused waaaaay more often in the form of misleading, misanthropic lies and half truths that are published all over the place.
  17. GCMkc

    GCMkc Well-Known Member

    Stopped reading the article when I read this sentence.

    "The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns"

    Sounds like gun control to me.
  18. kwguy

    kwguy Well-Known Member

    ^^Good point.
  19. xXxplosive

    xXxplosive Well-Known Member

    And this is why I can't figure why a Jewish woman like Diane Fienstein would be against 2A with this type of history behind her clan.......I dunno.
  20. gearhead

    gearhead Well-Known Member

    Not unlike gun control in some of our more urban areas, where gun control is for the masses but the privileged few seem to be able to get permission to carry a weapon. I can understand how Salon would find this somehow reasonable.

Share This Page