For the past two years, the far left has accused Trump of being Hitler. For the super morons, “literally Hitler.” The far left also has an ardent love affair with gun control. Where legal citizens should be limited or (if the left is being honest) barred from having guns. These two sentiments run counter to each other. If you think an elected president’s policies resemble Hitler, in any way, then suggest the citizenry be limited in its ability to access arms, you’re dumber than an undersea mailbox.
Here’s the kicker: Hitler, like the militant left, had a raging hardon for gun control. How else can you explain the ease with which Reich soldiers ushered defenseless Jews onto cattle cars, to be sent to their deaths? Hitler didn’t use slaying hashtags. He didn’t employ clickbait headlines which “took it to the haters.” No, Hitler’s Nazi government exploited and enacted gun control laws.
The previous sentence has shitposting trolls cracking their knuckles to prepare an onslaught of all caps rage. I’m sorry you and Adolf share opinions on policy. Truly. But rather than send me your hate, maybe you could change how you view gun control.
Government tyranny relies on a defenseless citizenry. Hence America’s Founding Fathers advocated for a well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Hitler knew the same.
German gun control didn’t start with Hitler. It began in a post World War I Germany, in the 1920s. The German government enacted a series of laws which slowly disarmed the populace. At the time, the government feared the rising power of “Communists” (in quotation marks for a reason: sometimes the government simply labeled a dissenter a “communist” to do whatever it liked with them). It addressed those fears by insisting only certain people, and members of the state, have firearms. You know, to control any kind of uprising. It’s common sense.
Even those people allowed arms, to protect their homes or to hunt, had limits. Trust me, you’ll get shivers reading how the German government handled gun control. The parallels are frightening.
So let’s get started. Excerpts sourced from Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews. The full, comprehensive, well-sourced paper exceeds 50 pages. It begins with a timeline of gun control events. For brevity, I’ve pulled the macro point sections of the report. But I encourage you to read the full report when you have a spot of time.
Implementing regulations adopted in 1928 provided that, unless otherwise specified, the firearms acquisition permit entitled one to acquire only one firearm, and the ammunition acquisition permit entitled the holder to acquire only 50 jacketed or ball cartridges. When the firearm(s) authorized by the acquisition permit was obtained, the transferor (whether a dealer or a non-dealer) was required to submit the permit to the police. Dealers kept acquisition and disposition books which were subject to police inspection on demand.
Only certain firearms allowed. Only a certain amount of rounds were allowed. Permits needed to be obtained from police, which kept a record of who had what. Interesting.
Within a decade, Germany had gone from a brutal firearms seizure policy which, in times of unrest, entailed selective yet immediate execution for mere possession of a firearm, to a modern, comprehensive gun control law. Passed by a liberal republic, this law ensured that the police had records of all firearms acquisitions (or at least all lawful ones) and that the keeping and bearing of arms were subject to police approval. This firearms control regime was quite useful to the new government that came to power a half decade later.
So Hitler took advantage of an already “gun free zone” Germany. After rising to power, Hitler doubled down. He, like the modern left, didn’t think an everyday citizen needed a “military” rifle.
…anyone who possessed a military rifle or handgun was a public enemy unless he or she was a member of a Nazi-approved organization. Of the three listed organizations, the SS (Schutzstaffeln) or Elite Guard of the National Organization.
So unless you were part of a permissible group of people, given the Nazi seal of approval, no firearms for you. These laws were enforced in typical Nazi fashion. Gun confiscation and raids:
On March 28 1934, the State Ministry of the Interior headed by Frick issued a secret directive to the government units, police, municipal commissars, and special commissioners of the highest SA leaders regarding the execution of the ordinance on the surrender of military weapons. It began: “Despite all of the measures taken so far, parts of the population opposed to the national government and the national movement behind it are still in possession of military weapons and military ammunition.” It ordered the police “immediately to order the population to surrender any military weapons in a timely manner to the special commissars listed in the official gazettes as well as in the local press.” Weapons to be surrendered included not just heavy weapons but also “military rifles.”
“Military rifles.” Let that sink in.
That’s long enough.
The Nazis also frowned upon people having too many rounds. Sound familiar? Of course it does. History tends to repeat itself.
With no guns to defend themselves, with no arms with which to support an uprising, the Jews and sympathetic Germans had no means to fight the Third Reich. Which, of course, was the entire idea.
Am I suggesting Americans who support gun control want to eliminate large swaths of people? Well, at least not born people. Funny how the same people who support gun control also support the systemic slaughter of unborn humans. But that’s for another time. Frankly, it doesn’t really matter why people support gun control. What history has shown us, including that of Germany, is a despotic, tyrannical government will take advantage of a defenseless citizenry. So if you think it’s fine to ban guns to “save the children” or to “prevent mass shootings” what you’re supporting is taking guns from everyone but the state. A state which can change leadership in just one election.