I've been holding my tongue and keyboard on the whole "Hitler took away people's guns" hysteria to see if people would realize that it is, in fact, pure fiction. Guess what? They just did.
Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus.
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.
This would be a great example of why I don't really want to waste much of my time anymore having discussions with people who make up their own history.
Oh, and Stalin?
“As for Stalin,” Bartov continued, “the very idea of either gun control or the freedom to bear arms would have been absurd to him. His regime used violence on a vast scale, provided arms to thugs of all descriptions, and stripped not guns but any human image from those it declared to be its enemies. And then, when it needed them, as in WWII, it took millions of men out of the Gulags, trained and armed them and sent them to fight Hitler, only to send back the few survivors into the camps if they uttered any criticism of the regime.”
So, when that crazy uncle of yours at the next dinner starts pulling the conversation into the Land of Moonbat, kindly remind everyone of what actually happened.
And suggest that someone take your uncle to see a mental health professional.
5 comments:
Once again, Mark cites an article from a hard left site (that bias thing) that's easily shown to be full of lies.
And in case you've forgotten, and Mark obviously has…
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.
— Adolph Hitler, recorded in Hitler's Table Talks, 1941-1942
Here is an earlier, and non-biased article on the subject.
The Nazis made use of the Weimar law, and the only "loosening" in 1938 was excluding party members from regulation. Attempting to argue it was a more general de-regulation is pretty much a lie.
As always, the progressive/liberal positions on every topic are based on lies. Lefties are liars and that is a fact.
pretty much a lie.
Well, go with what you know huh?
The truth is that a democratic country restricted arms. Then later a tyrant rose to power and the populace had no ability to resist.
But Mark maintains such could never happen here. One of the reasons he argues, is that we have checks and balances in our system that prevent any tyranny from gaining power. Ironically he argues this while attempting to dismiss concerns that restricting one of those very checks and balances could weaken our ability to prevent a tyranny.
Did you catch that? Mark's argument is essentially - You don't need 'this' check and balance to prevent tyranny because we have 'these' other checks and balances.
I have to wonder what screeching would Mark have emitted if GWB tried to dismiss Congress or issue an executive order overruling the Supreme Court.
I have to wonder what screeching would Mark have emitted
Something like this I imagine.
Post a Comment