Hitler and guns...

[Midnightrider]

OK 1 point for you, do you want a cookie ...... you are being Obtuse, like most all Progressives .. you want to play word games ...

what they did do was change WHO was considered a Citizen .....

You guys are the ones trying to play word games. Unfortunately for you, you are unequipped for such an endeavor.

It is a fact that Germans were allowed to own guns, it is a fact that hitler loosened gun laws for Germans. Hitler didn't drive the German people to the holocaust at the point of a gun, he lead them with propaganda and antisemitism.

 

[Inkd]

The law went from German citizens could not own guns to they could own guns. That's a loosening of the gun laws.

I took several courses on nazism and the holocaust, most of the the German people were very much on hitlers side for most of the war. National socialism was essentially the religion of the people and they were allowed to buy and keep arms.

So German citizens, the ruling class, were able to own firearms while the lower class people, Jews and Communists, were not able to own firearms.

If you draw a direct parallel between the German ruling class of that day and our politicians of today, this is how I see it. Dianne Feinstein(ruling class) has a concealed weapons permit but she doesn't think that you or I(the lower class citizens) should have one.

Our government can have "personal defense weapons" with those evil hi-cap magazines. But, if a citizen wants to own one, it now becomes an "assault weapon and depending on where you can live, you are restricted in the amount of rounds you can have in a magazine.

So yes, Hitler did lessen restrictions and make it easier for GERMANS to own guns, I agree with you there, but he restricted a whole other demographic group. If you were a German, happy days. If not, enjoy your train ride and shower.

If you can't see the similarities, then I don't know how else to lay it out for you.

 

[Midnightrider]

So German citizens, the ruling class, were able to own firearms while the lower class people, Jews and Communists, were not able to own firearms.

If you draw a direct parallel between the German ruling class of that day and our politicians of today, this is how I see it. Dianne Feinstein(ruling class) has a concealed weapons permit but she doesn't think that you or I(the lower class citizens) should have one.

Our government can have "personal defense weapons" with those evil hi-cap magazines. But, if a citizen wants to own one, it now becomes an "assault weapon and depending on where you can live, you are restricted in the amount of rounds you can have in a magazine.

So yes, Hitler did lessen restrictions and make it easier for GERMANS to own guns, I agree with you there, but he restricted a whole other demographic group. If you were a German, happy days. If not, enjoy your train ride and shower.

If you can't see the similarities, then I don't know how else to lay it out for you.

No that isn't a good parallel. A better analogy would be comparing the Jews to our illegal immigrants. Most conservative agree that illegals don't have the same rights as citizens. Again, German citizens had their rights increase. What they as a country had determined to be an invading immigrant population wasn't covered by those rights.

 

[Midnightrider]

Btw, now that I have been able to view the video I ha e to say I agree with the speaker.

I am also surprised at Larry and the title of his thread. Did ETC get ahold of your password?

 

[Crashpupty]

No that isn't a good parallel. A better analogy would be comparing the Jews to our illegal immigrants. Most conservative agree that illegals don't have the same rights as citizens. Again, German citizens had their rights increase. What they as a country had determined to be an invading immigrant population wasn't covered by those rights.

Wow really. Read more will ya. They were all citizens to start with and had the right stripped away. Really are you that narrow minded Do you think the Jews suddenly ran to Germany to be lined up in concentration camps and killed.

 

[Crashpupty]

No that isn't a good parallel. A better analogy would be comparing the Jews to our illegal immigrants. Most conservative agree that illegals don't have the same rights as citizens. Again, German citizens had their rights increase. What they as a country had determined to be an invading immigrant population wasn't covered by those rights.

Why in the name of heck should an Illegal have any rights, our Constitution applies to legal citizens. Illegals can fend for them selves they came with no expectation and should receive the same. The Jews were German Citizens and the government removed that right. You cannot even try to compare the two situations. Shame on your ass for trying.

 

[Midnightrider]

Wow really. Read more will ya. They were all citizens to start with and had the right stripped away. Really are you that narrow minded Do you think the Jews suddenly ran to Germany to be lined up in concentration camps and killed.

The Germans actually viewed the Jews as nonhuman, not just invading immigrants, but an invading species. Read up on it. You might want to read up on analogies too. No where did I say that jews were illegal immigrants.

 

[GURPS]

A better analogy would be comparing the Jews to our illegal immigrants.

and what exactly was the Country they were illegally entering from ?

 

[Midnightrider]

Why in the name of heck should an Illegal have any rights, our Constitution applies to legal citizens. Illegals can fend for them selves they came with no expectation and should receive the same. The Jews were German Citizens and the government removed that right. You cannot even try to compare the two situations. Shame on your ass for trying.

You really should read up in the holocaust. The type of disdain that you show for "illegals" is exactly what hitler used to commit his atrocities. The popular hatred of the "other" is a powerful thing.

 

[Inkd]

No that isn't a good parallel. A better analogy would be comparing the Jews to our illegal immigrants. Most conservative agree that illegals don't have the same rights as citizens. Again, German citizens had their rights increase. What they as a country had determined to be an invading immigrant population wasn't covered by those rights.

How in the hell can you even remotely compare the Jews in Nazi Germany to illegal immigrants in the United States? Seriously?

I'm not talking about viewpoints and opinions. I'm talking about a whole group of people who were born in a country, had businesses, were educated and contributed to society in many ways. Then because some crazy man got elected to power all of a sudden they became a scourge, a burden, less than human.

How in the hell does that even compare to an illegal immigrant?

 

[Crashpupty]

The Germans actually viewed the Jews as nonhuman, not just invading immigrants, but an invading species. Read up on it. You might want to read up on analogies too. No where did I say that jews were illegal immigrants.

They were legal pre hitler and look what happened. The Nazi' s made them that way as illegal so the laws of Germany made them illegal. So really what is your point. Do we give a free pass or do we march illegals to the ovens because they are trulely an invading species

 

[Crashpupty]

You really should read up in the holocaust. The type of disdain that you show for "illegals" is exactly what hitler used to commit his atrocities. The popular hatred of the "other" is a powerful thing.

They had no Constitution to protect any rights. This has nothing to do with any of your ramblings If you are pro Hitler then say so. Please show me how Hitler and all he did was a benefit to society. The Jews were long time citizens till the crazy Hitler guy removed that right and made them illegal.

 

[Midnightrider]

They had no Constitution to protect any rights. This has nothing to do with any of your ramblings If you are pro Hitler then say so. Please show me how Hitler and all he did was a benefit to society. The Jews were long time citizens till the crazy Hitler guy removed that right and made them illegal.

You really have a hard time comprehending what you read.

 

[Larry Gude]

Btw, now that I have been able to view the video I ha e to say I agree with the speaker.

I am also surprised at Larry and the title of his thread.

Why? Hitler stripped some people of their rights, including firearm ownership specifically to, to put it lightly, abuse those folks. Pro gun folks see the second amendment as applying to EVERYONE for that very reason.

You are correct to point out that Hitler didn't institute gun control across the board and actually reduced restrictions on 'real' Germans and that is noteworthy. But, that certainly doesn't make it OK to do what he did to the Jews, does it??? Them not being 'citizens' is pretty much Germany's 'Dred Scott' moment, isn't it?

Further, getting to the testimony, Hitler was never universally loved and cherished. He was feared, especially by Germany's conservatives, from pretty much day one. Strong Germany? Sure. But, more war? As we see in our lives every day, there is a strong impulse to go along to get along that can rather quickly become compulsory. This is, again, where basic rights come into play. Hitler reached his critical mass with the Reichstag laws and that was pretty much it.

I don't know how much history may have been changed if Jews retained the right to self defense, how much they would have actually resisted but, we do know what happens in the corollary.

The core issue remains; is the right to keep AND bear arms in this nation a right or a privilege? I would submit that what O'Malley and Bloomburg and Fienstein are after is it to be a government controlled privilege, period, and THAT serves the interests of the state and THAT is the core issue here.

 

[Midnightrider]

Why? Hitler stripped some people of their rights, including firearm ownership specifically to, to put it lightly, abuse those folks. Pro gun folks see the second amendment as applying to EVERYONE for that very reason.

You are correct to point out that Hitler didn't institute gun control across the board and actually reduced restrictions on 'real' Germans and that is noteworthy. But, that certainly doesn't make it OK to do what he did to the Jews, does it??? Them not being 'citizens' is pretty much Germany's 'Dred Scott' moment, isn't it?

Further, getting to the testimony, Hitler was never universally loved and cherished. He was feared, especially by Germany's conservatives, from pretty much day one. Strong Germany? Sure. But, more war? As we see in our lives every day, there is a strong impulse to go along to get along that can rather quickly become compulsory. This is, again, where basic rights come into play. Hitler reached his critical mass with the Reichstag laws and that was pretty much it.

I don't know how much history may have been changed if Jews retained the right to self defense, how much they would have actually resisted but, we do know what happens in the corollary.

The core issue remains; is the right to keep AND bear arms in this nation a right or a privilege? I would submit that what O'Malley and Bloomburg and Fienstein are after is it to be a government controlled privilege, period, and THAT serves the interests of the state and THAT is the core issue here.

Only surprised that you would choose such a misleading title considering what the lady actually said. She made several really good points and hardly mentioned Germany, and hitler might not have been mentioned at all. Her speech certainly wasn't about hitler and guns. Further, as we agree, hitler loosened gun laws for the vast majority of Germans. So there really isn't a 1:1 with omalley who is tightening laws for the vast majority.

As for hitler being loved, from what I have read he rode a surge of popularity for most I his reign. While Germans didn't necessarily want more war they were all about reestablishing the German homeland and many were totally for getting rid of the Jews in Europe. Toward the end if the war I am sure hitler was less popular, and I am sure that many claimed after the fact to have only gone along out of fear (we may never know the veracity of those claims)

 

[Dupontster]

Speaking of Hitler and guns..

 

[GURPS]

I would submit that what O'Malley and Bloomburg and Fienstein are after is it to be a government controlled privilege, period, and THAT serves the interests of the state and THAT is the core issue here.

people wonder why I am a single issue voter ....

... without Firearms, all other rights are subjective ... you need the 2A to protect all the others

 

[Larry Gude]

Only surprised that you would choose such a misleading title considering what the lady actually said. She made several really good points and hardly mentioned Germany, and hitler might not have been mentioned at all. Her speech certainly wasn't about hitler and guns. Further, as we agree, hitler loosened gun laws for the vast majority of Germans. So there really isn't a 1:1 with omalley who is tightening laws for the vast majority.

She mentions Hitler in the first few seconds AND the personal connection she has. I don't see that being remotely misleading.

That said, the thing to keep in mind about O'Malley is that he sees us ALL as Hitler saw the Jews; not to be trusted. So, you are correct it's not 1:1.

It's worse.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

My friend who lives in Germany, told me about all Hilter did.

The country was in shambles, and he came along promising the world. In a sense, he did, but after 9 short years, he had the public approval to do what he wished. Add to that, the amount of Germans on state payroll.

He was a wolf in sheep's clothing, but no one saw it.

 

[PsyOps]

The law went from German citizens could not own guns to they could own guns. That's a loosening of the gun laws.

I took several courses on nazism and the holocaust, most of the the German people were very much on hitlers side for most of the war. National socialism was essentially the religion of the people and they were allowed to buy and keep arms.

You do know what reverse psychology is don’t you?

Gun laws in Nazi Germany were not loosened to extend any kind of rights to Germans, they were loosened as a ploy to get people that possessed guns to register them so the Nazis could find them. Hitler had enemies in the right wing, communists, and Jews. He was going to disarm THEM, not his supporters. Gun registration allowed Hitler to disarm the people he viewed as a threat to him. He could not do what he did to the Jews if they were armed.

My ex-wife’s mother is German. I was stationed in Germany and got to talk to a lot of her relatives that were alive during that time. There was nothing Hitler did that was ever in the interest of the peoples’ rights; he was only interested in how he could quickly and easily push his agenda.

The reference to Hitler in these circumstance don’t come up out of nowhere. Gun registration in Nazi Germany was used for a purpose; to disarm threats. Even though that may not be the purpose for wanting this in this country now, it can be used for it in the wrong hands in the future. I’m not sure folks worry about people like Obama, but just the fact that every name that owns a guns is held in a massive database, that information could get into the wrong hands and be used against YOU. You should have a concern about that. History has proven this CAN happen. In THIS country - the USA - it is none of the government's business what I own, especially when it comes to something that is expressly protected in the constitution.