Christien Chalfant
Well if you're addressing the entire collective of people that don't want gun regulation then you should state who you're addressing. Poor communication skills aren't really working as well as decent or even mediocre communication skills.
I'm addressing the shithead who wrote your "This" link. If you don't know who he
is and what beliefs he advocates, you're doing a bang-up job vetting his skills as a historian. Here's a hint: He's
not a historian. He's one of
these ignorant douchebags.
Quote:
The statistic is not called "read a ******** book for once in your life," but thank you for not providing the information so now I have no reason to believe your opinion on Nazi Gun Laws.
All the information I provided is publicly available in the text of the law Benson set out to describe, in a misleading and dishonest manner, to imply kinship between Nazi Germany and modern America to the latter's detriment. I have given you the facts. The Nazi gun law, which is only a revision of a law from ten years earlier, did not introduce new restrictions on gun ownership for most people. (For whom it is easier to buy a gun than it had been in 1928, by any legitimate reading.) It did specifically ban Jews from owning or carrying guns, bullets, or stabbing weapons, but by this point in Germany, the Jews were not
even treated as second-class citizens, because they were no longer citizens. The argument that this was in some way the
first step toward Auschwitz is apocryphal; the journey toward Auschwitz began the day Hitler was elected, and it was practically inevitable the day he was granted absolute control over the law in Germany by legislative fiat. (That is to say, by 1933, there was no longer an authority in Germany capable of stopping it by conventional means.)
It had, for example, been nine months since the
Anschluss when this law was passed. So Germany's territorial expansion was already starting, that is to say. This was the year of "breathing room" and "peace in our time."
Anyway, to make this plainer.
The This website, on Tripod
I am writing a book on
Nazi policies and practices which sought to repress civilian gun ownership and to eradicate gun owners in Germany and in occupied Europe. The following sampling of my findings should give pause to the suggestion that draconian punishment of citizens for keeping firearms necessarily is a social good.
The bolded words are lies. They are not true. Those words are insupportable from the historical record. A person who says those words to you is a liar.
What follows is a straw man, as "draconian punishments for keeping firearms is a social good" is an uncommon policy position even among those who favor greater gun control measures than we currently have.
Quote:
The Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht)--the infamous Nazi rampage against Germany's Jews--took place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 8, the New York Times reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews," explaining:
The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been "disarmed" with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment.1
1. New York Times, Nov. 9, 1938, 24.
These things? These dates predate the law he cites at the top of the page, which was passed November 11, 1938. Kristallnacht was, of course, actually cited by Goebbels the date the law was passed - as normal and healthy:
Quote:
In an article which will appear in the Press tomorrow, Dr Goebbels ascribes yesterday’s outrages to the “healthy instinct” of the German people. He accuses the foreign Press of telling lies about the demonstrations and of twisting the facts.
“The anti-German Jewish foreign Press must know,” he writes, “that by exaggerating the events and by lies and misrepresentations it will benefit neither itself nor the Jews living in Germany. The opposite is more likely to be the case.
“The German people is anti-Semitic. It has no desire to have its right restricted or to be provoked in future by parasites of Jewish race.
“Anti-German foreign countries would do well to leave the solution of this problem to the Germans. If they feel the necessity to stand up for the case of the German Jews, they can have as many of our Jews as they like.”
http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Herr_Hitler_plans_new_steps_against_Jews,_The_Telegraph,_Nov._12,_1938.
Why, they actually blamed the riots on Jewish provocation, and proposed disarmament as a necessary remedy, much as one might expect from the Nazis. Being what they are.
Quote:
Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938.
Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents.
See that? He's implying, yet again, that gun registration was an unusually severe gun control scheme in 1928, although it replaced one yet more severe.
Now, why would he do that?