Reddit reviews Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and "Enemies of the State"
We found 11 Reddit comments about Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and "Enemies of the State". Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
> And when per-capita and demographics still result in the US standing out with ten times more school shootings than the rest of the world
Again, it depends on what you compare to what, that's certainly not true for the US vs. Europe.
> Also, "previously disarmed" would imply that these people were ever armed in the first place, which they weren't.
Sure....
The reason to "bring up hitler" is that there's demonstrated costs to disarming a people, the same Leftists who want to disarm the US people murdered a bare minimum of 100 million previously disarmed innocents in the 20th Century (for China, look up rifle taxes). If you consider the *National*sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei to be of the Left, as they certainly claimed to be, then quite a few more.
ADDED: I also bring up Hitler because of Austrians like [REDACTED] had any shame, they'd shut up about gun control for at least a few more generations. FURTHER ADDED: it appears he has some shame, he deleted his entire comment.Oops, Australians speak English, not Austrian.Archives for the links in comments:
----
I am Mnemosyne 2.1, No rest, no unarchived links. No matter the cost. ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time
Plural.
An "assault weapons" (doublespeak for: what the Warsaw Ghetto residents had the right to use) "ban" only of the production & sale of certain guns & parts, nowhere close to the proposed repeating of history of banning possession of all means of effective defense by Holocaust (and other lesser & greater genocides throughout history) victims as they were forced into hell on earth, mass graves.
Keep on Holocaust-denying.
lol that's so not true. Here's an entire book on Nazi gun control. It was written by Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer and Research Fellow with the Independent Institute who has argued and won three constitutional law cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.
All gun owners in Germany were Nazis? What does that say about gun owners today? Gun owners are Nazis? Wow. Keep digging that hole.
>https://www.amazon.com/Gun-Control-Third-Reich-Disarming/dp/1598131621/ref=nodl_
Did you even read my link? It was a take down of the author and his "research" in this book.
Not only that, an Amazon store link isn't really a source of info.
That's just it. It's not a straw man.
/r/NOWTTY - "No One Wants To Take Your Guns"
That sub may be a bit wacky, but man, there's plenty of people, including politicians, who really do say shit like that. And they mean it. The Freudian slips are rapid fire.
If you would like a history lesson about why "gun registries" and other such "common sense" measures are feared, I suggest reading Gun Control in the Third Reich.
This is not some alternate history exercise, and one might argue the Holocaust would have happened no matter what. Very true, it might have. However, this book is very well researched, and it does show how and why the Nazi's used regulation that was already in place from prior administrations to further their agenda, by allowing only certain groups (namely, their own thugs) to be armed, using loopholes in those previous laws.
Remember, the powers you give the government might be inherited by a future administration ran by people you do not like, or maybe even fear, and thus you should be very careful just how much power you allow them to have.
The following comment by HPLoveshack was silently greylisted.
The original comment can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/r/ Bitcoin/comments/89xoji/-/dwv73lj?context=4
The original comment's content was as follows:
---
> Don't worry, we'll just torture you until you produce a gun for us to confiscate.
>
> You should read Gun Control in the Third Reich.
They barely had any gun control. Unless you failed "The Test"
.....The real sticking point is that based on traits you were born with you could auto-fail 'that test' outright. But for everyone else it was about what you'd expect in a random Great Plains state.
-/u/OneBurnerToBurnemAll, parent
> Our issues important, but please don't equalize yourself
http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Control-Third-Reich-Disarming/dp/1598131621
Would you call references to Nazi Germany "equalizing ourselves" with Holocaust victims? I feel even this most serious of injustices warrants comparison.
I'd go so far as to argue the exact opposite of your point. We should be comparing present-day America to all manner of past atrocities in order to learn from them and move towards a more just future. I'm not going to lock MLK into a little box in the history textbooks; there are relevant comparisons to be made between both of our causes. You're the only person bringing ego and pride into it.
Not exactly. Nazis and Nazi sympathizers did nothing to stop the holocaust after anyone not a Nazi or that was Jewish or otherwise considered by the Nazis to be undesirable (gypsies, minorities, gays, etc.) was disarmed.
https://www.amazon.com/Gun-Control-Third-Reich-Disarming/dp/1598131621/ref=nodl_
It took me a while to compile my thoughts into this post, and to gather up links to online historical sources, so I know this is coming a bit late to the discussion, but I hope you'll get some value out of this:
>you having a semiautomatic rifle will not stop any government tyranny because nobody stops the United States military, and I understand that banning semiautos will not end all gun violence. I even understand that semiautos aren’t even responsible for a lot of homicides in the US outside of mass shootings.
So this is the bit that I want to focus on, because once upon a time, I posted to this subreddit about my views on guns and the 2nd amendment, and someone changed my view by making me confront the notion of a band of rebels defending against a drone strike. Then, I talked to a friend of mine about it (who happens to be a lawyer) and had my view changed back, lol. What he made me realize are 2 things, which I'll elaborate on in part:
Imagine a scenario with me where the President dissolves both houses of Congress, declares himself god-emperor, and actually starts a second civil war in which he sicks the military on the American populace. Could the military win such a conflict? Probably, but at what cost? It might not be as easy a victory as you would expect. There are more guns in this country than there are people. Granted, only an average of about a third of the households in the country own part of those guns, but the local percentage can vary widely from state to state. In the event of a civil war, who's to say that these gun owning citizens wouldn't get organized and disperse their weapons amongst their neighbors and fellow statesmen who don't have guns? In a state like Delaware, where only about 5% of the population owns a gun(s), the people might not offer much resistance, but in a state like Alaska, where two thirds of the people own a gun(s), or in Texas, where a third of the people own a gun(s) (in Texas a third of the population also amounts to about 10 million people), what exactly is the military supposed to do to crush the rebellion in states like that? They may have the advantage in technology, but they'll quickly find themselves being overwhelmed in numbers.
The misconception that I think most people have is that Americans will all unite and band together in a heroic attempt to dethrone the newly proclaimed god-emperor by marching on the capital and physically deposing him. At least, this is certainly the picture I had when I was a kid, but I think there are a lot of movies that reinforce that idea of a band of rebels struggling against tyranny. But the reality is that it would the U.S. military who would be forced to go on the offensive and find a way to quell the rebels, being easily over 100 million people in number, and being literally everywhere.
And that's to say nothing at all about the very likely scenario that half the military wouldn't even go along with their orders, and would return home to fight alongside their countrymen. Then the odds are in even greater favor of the rebels. The thing is, though, that the rebels don't even have to be able to actually win such a war. They just have to be able to be such a nuisance that any wannabe god-emperors would find it too costly to go to war, because it really would be an actual war - with its own people, on its own turf. Even if the government won, the detriment to the economy and our infrastructure and our population would be so taxing it would take decades, possibly even centuries to recover.
TL;DR - The hypothetical scenario of the President, or anyone in government becoming god-emperor, really boils down to a costs vs benefits problem, and the existence of the 2nd amendment makes the costs FAR outweigh the benefits.
Anyway, I mentioned that the second misconception I think people have is about what a tyrannical government looks like in practice, and I say tyrannical, but I should really use the word abusive. Obviously, an all-out civil war like in the scenario I laid out above doesn't just happen overnight. It happens slowly, over time, as government power becomes too centralized in the hands of one branch, or worse yet, one person. Imagine with me another scenario down the road a few years or so. Trump is still President, and through executive order, he makes it illegal to be a Muslim. He's able to work around the constitutional right that guarantees us freedom of religion, and when the law is enforced, it won't be the military enforcing it. Naturally, it will be the police, a different, oft overlooked arm of the government. Well, the police come to shut down their first mosque and arrest the Imam and probably others as well, but thanks to the second amendment, they're met with an angry mob of citizens bearing assault rifles. Not just members of the mosque, but members of other mosques, and even non-Muslims. Too many armed citizens for the police to subdue and carry off to prison. Now what is Trump to do? Does he call in the military? Does he drone strike the mosque? There's really nothing he can do here that won't result in the civil war scenario that I laid out previously.
This is the point of the 2nd amendment. It's not something that will likely ever have to be exercised so drastically as long as it remains a constitutional right. It's meant as a deterrent from the government ever trying to become too tyrannical.
But hey, maybe you're still not persuaded by my scenarios. Maybe you don't think they're plausible. Maybe you just don't think an armed populace is really enough to discourage Trump from stepping on Americans' freedom of religion. Well, apparently, an armed populace was enough to deter Hitler from rounding up the Jews and putting them into concentration camps. I just uncovered this little gem literally less than a week ago, so unfortunately I haven't read it myself. I've only heard what others I follow have to say about the book, so, small disclaimer there, but it details the gun control legislation in the Third Reich that Hitler used to disarm the Jews before rounding them up into concentration camps. I understand that the same happened in the Ottoman Empire before the Armenian Genocide, in Soviet Russia before the rise of Stalin, in China before the rise of Mao, and in Cambodia before Pol Pot (This is my source: https://www.naturalnews.com/039264_gun_control_timeline_true_history.html on the other governments. It mentions the years of the gun bans in each country, but I haven't yet found an independent fact checker that can verify these claims. I will edit this post when I find a more authoritative source, but I'm afraid if I wait much longer, you'll have lost interest in the thread and will have moved on, so take those last few historic claims with a grain of salt).