Skip to main content

Gun control has, after far too many deaths and massacres, finally started to be discussed by the public at large. It is an understatement to say that the pro-control side of the debate getting wind in its sails was long overdue; after all to have a debate there must be people willing to discuss it and until recently people had fallen into a pattern of:

-Massacre happens
-People proclaim it is 'too soon' to discuss any kind of efforts to ensure it doesn't happen again
-Time elapses, tempers die down
-No one discusses it again and the massacre becomes a statistic

There is an understandable emotional reasoning for not wanting to discuss political implications immediately following a tragedy like Newtown. People just died. Emotions are still raw. Investigations are just starting up, we can't assume we know what caused this one.

But now the genie is out of the bottle, and the death of innocent children and teachers is finally forcing a conversation. And so it has come to the Hitler card being deployed.

In any sane world, a pundit would invoke Godwin's Law. But we're in something else, aren't we? Below the ornate orange ornament, the results of a quick Wikipedia (and other sources) research bit on German gun control - and why invoking the Nazis is not only laughable, but wrong.

To really understand the state of German gun control during Hitler, one has to understand the state of Germany immediately following World War I. Namely, that it was utterly broken and defeated. The war itself had ravaged the French and German countryside, with able-bodied young men killed or maimed in warfare and tactical ploys that were considered highly ineffective (like trench charges).

The end of the war was signaled by the Treaty of Versailles in 1918. France in particular wanted Germany to pay hand over fist for what they'd done, and while Britain recognized that reparations could be costly it demanded its fair share. The two countries essentially trounced Wilson and the US delegation, and punished Germany severely and in numerous ways.

One of the terms of the Treaty, Article 169, stated the following:

"Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."

This equated to an outside power forcing Germany to surrender its weapons, similar to how modern-day conservatives fear that the UN will force the US to surrender its.

And so it was in 1919, Germany passed the Regulations on Firearm Ownership to comply with the Treaty. Firearm ownership was banned because the Allied Powers demanded they disarm. The ban was so strict that, as mentioned by Stephen Halbrook in 2000, that in times of unrest the mere possession of a handgun could result in immediate execution.

It was only in 1928 that Germany started to restore gun ownership with the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This removed an outright ban on gun ownership, and instead required licenses for a multitude of firearms uses. A license on ownership. One to carry a gun with you. One to buy and sell. And gun sellers now were required to keep information about who they sold to and what serial numbers were sold.

It was an utter rebuke of the 1919 law, and restored gun ownership rights. Germany had gone from 'taking people's guns' to 'regulating gun ownership'.

And all of this before the Nazis took power in 1933.

That is not to say that the Nazis did not pass any laws relating to gun ownership while in power. In 1938, the German Weapons Act was passed to replace the 1928 law. So how much of a restriction was this on gun ownership?

The short answer: It was mostly an expansion. The longer answer: It was mostly an expansion as long as you weren't a Jew.

The only new restrictions in the law related to buying guns: you had to be someone whose 'trustworthiness is not in question' and could 'show a need for a permit'. Essentially there were background checks and you couldn't just buy a gun because it's a Tuesday and that's what you do on Tuesdays.

Also, Jews were now excluded from firearms manufacture, and in a law later that year would have the right to bear arms stripped from them.

The rest of the law?
-Lowered the age you could buy guns to 18.
-Lengthened how long firearm permits could go before expiration.
-People who held hunting permits or were members of the Nazi party were made immune from regulation.
-Permits to manufacture and sell guns were eliminated. The ability was no longer regulated by permits.

And interestingly the law deregulated all non-handgun purchases. If you wanted a shotgun or a rifle and ammo to boot, you didn't have any problems with the Nazi government.

After World War II, gun ownership was banned again. The ban was to such a degree that German police could not bear arms. By request of the Allied Powers. In 1956, private firearm ownership rights were restored to what was essentially the 1928 law.

So, what can be discerned from this massive block of text?

First, that Germany approached the gun control debate from the opposite end that we approach it in the modern day. They were deciding how to let people safely obtain guns, not how to restrict unsafe acquisitions.

Second, that the only time that Germany 'came to take people's guns' was at the request of outside powers following its defeat in the World Wars. On its own, Germany gravitated back towards a highly regulated gun control scheme- but a scheme that still made owning a gun legal.

Third, that the Nazis themselves did not really restrict German gun ownership. True, you needed a reason for a gun. But it loosened restrictions on so many other fronts that it would be more accurate to say that the Nazis made it easier to own guns.

The only real asterisk to this statement is relating to the Jewish people, whose gun ownership rights were taken away two days following the 'Night of Broken Glass'. But even a few years earlier, the Nazi Party was starting to put pressure on the Jewish community. So while restricting gun ownership was certainly part of the Nazi's beginnings of its 'Final Solution', it is at best an ancillary piece of information when placed next to the seizure of businesses and property and the displacement of people from their homes.

Also keep in mind that this post is largely due to researching on Wikipedia, so all due caution to that.

The time is now to discuss gun control, and what sensible measures can be taken. And while there are things that can and should be done that don't involve changing gun laws, let's not tolerate false Nazi comparisons with a mere 'Godwin's law' and tell them just how wrong they are.

Originally posted to VTHokie011 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:43 PM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA, History for Kossacks, and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Just when I'd hoped the Nazi comparisons were over (2+ / 0-)

    Did anyone ever do any of this stuff besides the Nazis?
    Thanks for not mentioning that H-person

    Happy just to be alive

    by exlrrp on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:06:11 PM PST

  •  But, but, but Hitler ... is a very common refrain (7+ / 0-)

    of the NRAvangelists (even among us).

    A great video with Archie Bunker very "elegantly" expresses the same BS that was said in the 70s and 80s about the Soviets and that since they had gun control, all gun control results in totalitarian regimes. Great video:

    Isn't it great how they are so good at portraying themselves as victims?

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:06:21 PM PST

  •  Thanks for diary. n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama, poco, adrianrf

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:06:47 PM PST

  •  I think you missed the point. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    subtropolis, oldpunk

    In the sense of "all roads lead to rome", it was the destination that mattered more than the road that was traveled.

    Whether coming from the status of complete ban to a status of "guns for government and the politically connected"
    or coming from the status of complete ownership to a status of "guns for government and politically connected"
    Either way, the destination is the same. In nazi germany that destination allowed the government to persecute and execute a segment of the population. In pre-civil war america that destination allowed the government to persecure and execute and enslave a segment of the population.

    In pre-firearm europe that destination manifested as a feudal system, where the government (kings and lords) was allowed to persecute and abuse a segment of the population (peasants and serfs) through force of arms. At least, that was until enough of those peasants and serfs got pissed off enough at the rich folks and started to act using strength of numbers. Result of one such was in 1358, with the jacquerie.

    The founders were surely aware of the jacquerie and the 1358 actions, and I figure they surely knew that an armed populace would have been taken more seriously by the rich lords and barons if they had been armed, and thus would have been abused far less. Which would have resulted in something far less extreme than the jacquerie uprising.

    It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

    by JayFromPA on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:09:08 PM PST

    •  I'm not so sure (5+ / 0-)

      I don't disagree that stripping the right entirely certainly made the Jewish people an easier target in Nazi-era Germany. But an anti-Semitic sentiment helped propel the Nazis to power, and even before the Night of Broken Glass party officials behind closed doors were eying Jewish wealth as a way of enriching the country's coffers.

      There was already a seething dislike of the Jewish people by the establishment by the time the ban came down, or failing that they'd been scapegoated enough that an armed Jewish resistance could have backfired publicly in Germany along the lines of 'we told you guys they'd take up arms against us, they're clearly evil'.

      One other thought- yes, the German laws of 1938 did favor 'the government and the well-connected' for gun ownership in that they did not need permits and everyone else did. But this does not equate to a ban on private gun ownership, and people were certainly still allowed to have them.

      •  Put it this way.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It's a common anti-hunting statement "What if we arm the deer and they shoot back? How many would go hunting then?"

        Well, the anti-semitism that existed does not inspire the jewish persecution by itself. Of KEY importance is that the jews had no strength to defend themselves.

        Of great similarity are the black sections of town during jim crow, when blacks were kept as disarmed as possible. And so defenseless, Klan members who hated them were able to ride through unopposed by anything of any strength. It was not the Klan hatred alone that allowed those night riders, it was the combination of klan hatred and black disarmament.

        The disarmament effectively enabled the hatred to run free.

        I'm not at all enamored of the idea of some devout evangelist getting into the white house in a dozen years, after some extreme gun control laws have been put in place through knee jerk reactions in 2013, and that evangelist acting in accordance with a tea party congress to rid america of "unpatriotic godless" segment of the population.

        Any doubts that the nation can be so divided, I ask "Have you now or have you ever been associated with the communist party?"

        McCarthyism is not dead. Just sleeping.

        It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

        by JayFromPA on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:36:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Historical parallels (3+ / 0-)

          The historical parallels are compelling in these cases, and hatred has a longer half-life than our memories.

          I did acknowledge that the knowledge that the persecuted group (Jews, in the diary example) has no weapon to fight you with makes them an easier target. But I have to direct you back to the circumstances of this particular instance.

          The Night of Broken Glass was a series of coordinated attacks to convince the German public that the Jewish people should have their rights taken away. Even if the Jewish people had their arms post-Kristallnacht, I am convinced that the German government would have pointed to a standard case of self-defense of a Jew against an anti-Semitic aggressor as a sign of the correctness of their policies.

          I can't argue for every instance of peoples being disarmed in history. I can only argue for this particular one because it's the one the right loves to point to when railing against any type of gun control.

        •  Think you've got a chance against the Army? (3+ / 0-)

          And the Air Force?  

          Seriously, this kind of thinking is silly.  If the government should decide to do something like what you describe (a fairly hysterical and fantastical idea already), there would be little anyone could do about it.  Simply put, the state has access to firepower that ordinary citizens do not.  So unless you're planning on buying yourself tanks, attack helicopters, and fighter jets, I suggest you forget your fantasies of armed resistance.

          Besides, are you really planning on murdering your fellow citizens?  After all, what you're talking about is armed resistence to the American military, right?  Are you ready to shoot some Army private?  

          Frankly, if this is the best argument you have against gun control, I'd say you're out of ammunition (pun intended).  I know there are militia groups in Idaho that think this way, but I hadn't expected to see such paranoid fantasies here on DK.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:08:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Remember what alan west wrote.... (0+ / 0-)
            I believe we are headed towards the ultimate ideological clash in America. There is a widening chasm which has developed between those who believe in principled fiscal policies and those desiring the socialist bureaucratic nanny-state.
            I must confess, when I see anyone with an Obama 2012 bumper sticker, I recognize them as a threat to the gene pool.

            Remember, he lost by a hair. It was a too close election. West has a lot of supporters.

            It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

            by JayFromPA on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:57:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Alan West? Seriously? (0+ / 0-)

              So you think the words of a one-term congressman who lost his re-election bid demonstrates that the U.S. government is going to embark on some kind of new Holocaust?

              Wow.  I was thinking earlier that "paranoid fantasies" might have been a little strong.  I see that it was pretty much on the money.

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:37:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  How many voted for him? eom. (0+ / 0-)

                It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

                by JayFromPA on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:05:29 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  And this isn't about the army. (0+ / 0-)

                This isn't about me and the army. Quit trying to drag me off topic. I was sleepy last night after going to see django unchained - great movie IMO. The Alan West quote was to point out that there is a group of people who have severe hate of another group of people JUST FOR POLITICAL REASONS, RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA TODAY.

                How much more emphasis must I use to point that out to you?

                This is about how disarmament of Group A created the OPPORTUNITY for Group A to be abused and persecuted by Group B.

                Disarmed blacks and the Klan.
                Peasants and serfs and the French nobility.
                Modern tibetans and the Han chinese.

                And to some lesser extent this applies to other group interactions such as
                Kurds and Saddam Hussein.
                Current day Syrians and King Assad

                And in the future this can easily apply to
                Non evangelists and an evangelical Potus.

                This opportunistic oppression happens. Fill in OTHER examples for yourself as an academic exercise.

                It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

                by JayFromPA on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:15:37 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Group A and Group B? (0+ / 0-)

                  What is this?  A grammar school math problem?  Who the hell are you talking about?  Who's in which group?  And once you figure out who's in Group A, maybe you can then explain how only they will be disarmed so that the dastardly but-as-yet-unidentified members of Group B can "oppress" them.

                  BTW, even though you say it's not about the army, pretty much every one of your examples involves a central government using its military to oppress people.  So even if your analogies were valid (and they're not even close) you'll be up against the American military, a fact which you seem to concede when you throw out the fear of an "evangelical POTUS."

                  Not only is this paranoid fantasy, it's not even terribly well thought through.  I'm sure there are some survivalist authors who could provide you with a better story line.  

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:02:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Nuremberg Laws of 1936 (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tinfoil Hat, oldpunk, Cartoon Peril

        had already made life nearly unbearable for "Jews," and it caused quite a bit consternation when even the village priest could retroactively be declared a Jew.

        There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

        by bernardpliers on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:51:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  See my post below (8+ / 0-)

      The Communists were armed to the teeth, but not as armed as the German army and the Gestapo.  Their arms did not prevent them from being sent to concentration camps, murdered, or deported to Stalin's Russia, who proceeded to murder every deported German Communist over the age of 12 lest one be a Nazi spy.

      "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

      by Navy Vet Terp on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:45:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The whole point of the 2nd Amendment (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      adrianrf, wonmug, Cartoon Peril

      was to alleviate anti-federalist fears of a new, central standing army and show that states could balance that with their own, primarily pre-existing, local forces as having a place in the defense of the fledgling country - at the time, under state jurisdiction.

      Not to make politicians fearful that they should be less tyrannical or oppressive, due to a disorganized bunch of armed citizens here and there.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:43:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The attempt to disarm the Nazis failed (15+ / 0-)

    On April 10, Paul von Hindenburg was reelected President, defeating Adolf Hitler:

    Hindenburg  19,359,983  53%
    Hitler           13,418,547  37%
    Thaelmann    3,706,759   10%  (Communist)

    With a clear majority vote against the Nazis, Chancellor Heinrich Bruening and his defense minister, General Wilhelm Groener, saw this as the chance to disarm the Nazis and thereby save German democracy.  On April 13th, they presented their draft decree to President Hindenburg, who signed it the next day.

    The decree banned all private armies.  There were three:  The Nazi stormtroopers, the Communist Rotfrontkämpferbund (Red Front Fighter's League), and the Social Democrats Reichsbanner.  But Army commander Kurt von Schleicher had a fit.  He reported to President Hindenburg that while the army could disarm the Communists and Social Democrats, they could not disarm the Nazis without a civil war, and, with regard to the Nazis, they were so well armed he could not guarantee the army would prevail.  Hindenburg revoked the order, and on May 29, 1932, Hindenburg demanded Bruening's resignation as chancellor, which he gave the following day, with Groener also resigning as defense minister.  

    Bruening was the last democratically elected chancellor of Germany before Hitler.  As a reward for saving the Nazi Party, Hitler had General Schleicher murdered in June of 1934.  

    This is an example of how an over-armed population can destroy democracy.

    Source:  William Shirer, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

    "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

    by Navy Vet Terp on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:19:14 PM PST

  •  thanks for this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I was just thinking about this last night while watching Alex Jones Unhinged (Whats the consensus) but couldn't take the time to do the work on proving the claim false.

    All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

    by subtropolis on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:34:36 PM PST

    •  Guy is unhinged, eh? (0+ / 0-)

      He's what we're dealing with whenever this issue is raised. Some deep internal panic completely blocks out rationality.
      Must be something in the lizard brain, something like instinct, way lower level than intellect.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:00:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bullshit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    My husband's Grandmother, living in Friedberg, Hessen, ditched her husband's hunting rifle and shotgun in the walls of the home they owned.

    She did that because the Nazi's were coming to take them, and she feared for her and her children's well being.

    The house was searched.

    •  She (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      wasn't jewish or a Nazi. Just a citizen. The only people allowed weapons were the police and military, and they couldn't take them home.

      •  Question (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I hesitate to ask too many questions, but was it for lack of a permit, was she a member of a persecuted group?

        •  No (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          She owned a flower shop. She was German with a clean genealogy. She did join the party because she was a business owner and couldn't get a business license otherwise. They were her deceased husbands guns. She was keeping them for her son. The Nazi's just came searching whenever they pleased. And what are you going to do?

          They are still in that wall.

          •  Interesting (3+ / 0-)

            I would've thought that being a member of the party would mean you could have owned the guns without a permit as specified in the Wikipedia article. Though if she was a member purely out of fear or if that rule was only for certain tiers of the party I can see the officials not trusting her loyalty to the party.

            I certainly wouldn't put anything past the people who searched her house, at any rate. I apologize if I was implying anything about your husband's grandmother's story, I was merely trying to point out the disconnect between what conservatives believe Nazi-era gun control to be compared to what laws they actually passed.

            •  Everyone was a member (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              of the party. No, you couldn't own guns.

              EVERYBODY lived in fear. They would start at one end of the street and search every home to the end of the street. People were scared of each other, of their children! Children were encouraged to report even innocent things. Neighbor's turned on neighbors out of fear.

              It was a real police state.

              Nazi era gun control was much more draconian than the written law provided for the world's consumption. As was their actions concerning untermenschen.

              Thinking the Nazi's were temperate concerning gun control is remarkably naive.

              I mean, they were Nazi's. Those dudes earned their rep.

              •  Defer to real world experience (3+ / 0-)

                I can't really argue against someone's life experience. After all, she was there and I was not. So I concede it's probable that in a lot of cases the de facto law overruled the letter of it.

                While I still adhere to what I've found - that there was no law banning Germans from gun ownership - I think your family member's story does contribute an interesting bit of color and context to what it was like and may imply that just because you could own a gun didn't mean that the Nazi government wanted you to.

                •  It was a totalitarian regime (0+ / 0-)

                  They also proclaimed to the world that the Jewish population was being cared for in an environment that made them healthy and happy!

                  It was a difficult time for my husband's family, and they were privileged vs. other classes of people in Germany.

    •  All this proves is that . . . (3+ / 0-)

      autocracies often don't adhere to their own laws.  This assumes, of course, that the house was searched for the purpose of finding and seizing guns, and not for some other reason, of which there might well have been many during the Nazi era.

      So it's entirely possible that your husband's grandmother was legally entitled to own guns under then-existing German law.  It's also entirely possible that the authorities simply decided to disregard whatever legal rights she may have had.  The National Socialists aren't well known for their scrupulous attention to legal niceties.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:59:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wouldn't put it past them (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FogCityJohn, Cassandra Waites

        I think that finding the gun may or may not have been 'icing on the cake' for whatever they were searching the house for (and that is assuming they weren't looking for the guns, which I can't assume from my position).

        Regardless, yes. The German government of the time didn't like the spirit of their own laws much.

        •  If they had the slightest doubts . . . (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cassandra Waites, adrianrf

          about an individual's "loyalty," they'd quite happily search the person's residence and put him in prison.  

          Anyone who has any doubts about that should read Hans Fallada's excellent novel Every Man Dies Alone (Jeder stirbt für sich allein).  Fallada lived through the Nazi era, and his novel exposes just how brutal, lawless, and unscrupulous the Nazis were.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:15:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Well, if you heard it from grandma (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      adrianrf, oldmilitant

      I'm sorry, hubby's grandma, then it must be true!  I mean, you know, the actual laws in force in 1919, 1928, and 1938, those don't really matter.  Documentary history of the era, just paper.

      We need to rely on people's memory!  Infallible human memory, passed on through the oral tradition!  Absolutely reliable as to dates and details, as every oral historian can readily confirm!

      Yup.  Reject the diarist.  Reject the historians.  annecros's husband's granny remembers she had to hide her guns in the Third Reich, so the Nazis must have had an absolute prohibition on guns!

      Long Live the Second Amendment!!!!

      When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

      by litho on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:06:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The German government was allowed to keep (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adrianrf, wu ming

    machine guns after WWI for the purpose of using them against riots or strikes by workers in fear of a Bolshevik revolution.

    Guns don't kill people...people with GUNS kill people.

    by thestructureguy on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:30:33 PM PST

    •  Is that so? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That's an interesting wrinkle. I knew the Germans were allowed to keep armaments up to a certain point, but I didn't think they'd be allowed to keep machine guns (albeit for ending domestic insurrection).

      •  Huge fear in central europe as well as (0+ / 0-)

        England of the revolution spreading.  The red flag was even hoisted temporarily in Bavaria. Germany was ripe for revolution as well as England.  There was even discussions though they went nowhere of settling peace with Germany and then combining to go after Russia and divide it up among the powers.  Socialism nearly engulfed Europe. Good book for all progressives to read is To End All Wars.  Puts modern-day progressives to shame.

        Guns don't kill people...people with GUNS kill people.

        by thestructureguy on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:49:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you (3+ / 0-)

    For researching this information and bringing it to the discussion-table in such a well-written and clear way.

    Sometimes the sheer volume of RW blather is almost too exhausting to rebut part by part.

    But fact-based truth dust sprinkled liberally over these roiling waters always helps.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site