ForumGarden

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

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.


The Hitler gun control lie - Salon.com

Having just lost millions in a world war would you have wanted the German people to be heavily armed.

How about, it's a bit disingenuous of the gun lobby to defend a citizens rights to be armed while at the same time backing the US government as it prevents other nation states from getting the weapons it needs to defend it's citizens. Or does that go down like a lead balloon?:sneaky:

gmc;1416471 wrote: Having just lost millions in a world war would you have wanted the German people to be heavily armed.

How about, it's a bit disingenuous of the gun lobby to defend a citizens rights to be armed while at the same time backing the US government as it prevents other nation states from getting the weapons it needs to defend it's citizens. Agreed.

I think there are too many Hitler gun threads.

Accountable;1416510 wrote: Agreed.


I'm in shock.

gmc;1416543 wrote: I'm in shock.
Why? Have I ever shown myself to be inconsistent on such things? I'd love to see the proof. I suspect it's more you applying your stereotypes to me.

Accountable;1416548 wrote: Why? Have I ever shown myself to be inconsistent on such things? I'd love to see the proof. I suspect it's more you applying your stereotypes to me.


Just kidding, usually we seem to be on opposite sides of a debate. . I was half expecting someone to jumo in with you are just anti-american type of reposte.

Aren't these considered redundant posts?













Disclaimer: Due to recent attacks by friendly members of this forum, this disclaimer is needed. The above statement was made by me and cannot be verified as true with wiki link, video, scientific study, personal verification, multiple witnesses or actual verbal communication. It is in fact an observation or an experienced opinion gathered over time and presented as a point of discussion.

In light of that, treat the statement as completely false, full of hidden political overtones, stabs at sexism, racism, bigotry, religious fanaticism, conservatism, marxism, nazisim, liberalism, fascism, utopianism, pantysinabindism, gonnatakealeakism, and general don'tknowwhatthehellI'mtalkingaboutism.

halfway;1416559 wrote: Aren't these considered redundant posts?













Disclaimer: Due to recent attacks by friendly members of this forum, this disclaimer is needed. The above statement was made by me and cannot be verified as true with wiki link, video, scientific study, personal verification, multiple witnesses or actual verbal communication. It is in fact an observation or an experienced opinion gathered over time and presented as a point of discussion.

In light of that, treat the statement as completely false, full of hidden political overtones, stabs at sexism, racism, bigotry, religious fanaticism, conservatism, marxism, nazisim, liberalism, fascism, utopianism, pantysinabindism, gonnatakealeakism, and general don'tknowwhatthehellI'mtalkingaboutism.No rebuttal or verification to the article? I figured you would since you're an academic historian. I thought this was a perfect opportunity for the rest of us to be taught something. That's what you do, right? Teach?

Why do we need another hitler gun thread?





Disclaimer: Due to recent attacks by friendly members of this forum, this disclaimer is needed. The above statement was made by me and cannot be verified as true with wiki link, video, scientific study, personal verification, multiple witnesses or actual verbal communication. It is in fact an observation or an experienced opinion gathered over time and presented as a point of discussion.

In light of that, treat the statement as completely false, full of hidden political overtones, stabs at sexism, racism, bigotry, religious fanaticism, conservatism, marxism, nazisim, liberalism, fascism, utopianism, pantysinabindism, gonnatakealeakism, and general don'tknowwhatthehellI'mtalkingabou

Yours was a copy and paste viral email. But you did say you researched it. Right?

***

gmc;1416554 wrote: Just kidding, usually we seem to be on opposite sides of a debate. . I was half expecting someone to jumo in with you are just anti-american type of reposte.
I think that's because we are usually discussing US domestic issues/policies. I prefer to discuss our international stances in another forum because I don't like feeding Spot's hatred.

Accountable;1416581 wrote: I think that's because we are usually discussing US domestic issues/policies. I prefer to discuss our international stances in another forum because I don't like feeding Spot's hatred.


I've given up commenting on american domestic issues. When it comes to gun control the lunatics seem to have won the argument.

gmc;1416614 wrote: I've given up commenting on american domestic issues. When it comes to gun control the lunatics seem to have won the argument.
Well, he's trying, anyway. The word is that his next step is to issue an illegal executive order aimed at restricting ammunition. With any luck we still have enough in Washington who support the rule of law. I hope we don't have too many there like Ahso.

Accountable;1416663 wrote: Well, he's trying, anyway. The word is that his next step is to issue an illegal executive order aimed at restricting ammunition. With any luck we still have enough in Washington who support the rule of law. I hope we don't have too many there like Ahso.You keep your focus on what me and others are thinking and doing while we worry about the innocent. Stay with your bullsh!t crusade while we engage with the reality of the debate and try to actually get something done.

Ahso!;1416668 wrote: You keep your focus on what me and others are thinking and doing while we worry about the innocent. Stay with your bullsh!t crusade while we engage with the reality of the debate and try to actually get something done.
Gotta keep an eye on you short-sighted unprincipled people so that you don't give up everyone's liberty for your own selfish comfort.

Accountable;1416671 wrote: Gotta keep an eye on you short-sighted unprincipled people so that you don't give up everyone's liberty for your own selfish comfort.You might be long-sighted alright, your problem is you spend all your time looking back instead of forward. The past isn't the future. Refocus.

Ooh look, I've got you talking philosophically. Holy Sh!t! This might be a new beginning for you.

Ahso!;1416674 wrote: Ooh look, I've got you talking philosophically. Holy Sh!t! This might be a new beginning for you.
Short memory, RJ.

Accountable;1416663 wrote: Well, he's trying, anyway. The word is that his next step is to issue an illegal executive order aimed at restricting ammunition. With any luck we still have enough in Washington who support the rule of law. I hope we don't have too many there like Ahso.


Ow come on now you don't mean that how can having more people like ahso around be a bad thing?

How on earth could you police the amount of ammunition someone has especially give the amount in circulation. If it was me I would ban assault rifles in private hands and give an amnesty period during which people can hand them in. After that anyone caught with one can go to jail the assumption being that anyone paranoid enough to want one is not of sound mind. I doubt that would work in the US though.

gmc;1416709 wrote: Ow come on now you don't mean that how can having more people like ahso around be a bad thing?If not for me and you, who-t-f else would talk to him?



Oh, I forgot, he'd have Mutt and Jeff to amuse him.

Ahso!;1416720 wrote: If not for me and you, who-t-f else would talk to him?



Oh, I forgot, he'd have Mutt and Jeff to amuse him.


I'd to look that up to find out what you were talking about. It's these quaint foreign allusions that make this forum so interesting.

Another part of the myth being propagated is that Hitler was a left wing/socialist which would make the communists right wing fascists or do they see it simply as internecine warfare between two socialist groups?

How do you explain the mccarthy era? In light of the cold war it might make sense but how come racist groups didn't find themselves in trouble after the holocaust became generally known about? Did the religious justification for racism hold sway or what.

gmc;1416709 wrote: How on earth could you police the amount of ammunition someone has especially give the amount in circulation.It wouldn't be inventorying the amount they have right now; it would be limiting how much they could purchase from the date of the "law" (I use quotation marks because the president threatened to use executive orders, which are only legal when carrying out his duty of executing constitutional law. EO's can't create law from whole cloth ... legally)

gmc;1416709 wrote: If it was me I would ban assault rifles in private hands and give an amnesty period during which people can hand them in. After that anyone caught with one can go to jail the assumption being that anyone paranoid enough to want one is not of sound mind. I doubt that would work in the US though.No it wouldn't. That's the safety of having a written Constitution (or was, when we actually paid attention to it) : No one person can create law on a whim based on a personal opinion.