I saw this bumper sticker earlier today and got to wondering. Did Hitler actually prohibit private ownership of guns?
I am a gunowner, yet I am always surprised at the mentality that the populace can always protect itself from an oppressive government when they have firearms. That would be just fine if the oppressive government restricted itself to firearms.
So, let’s suppose this “Oppressive Government” wants to bring the populace under its repressive thumb. Even without gun registration, this government would have a damned good idea that they would be facing an armed populace. However, they would also know that this poulace only has conventional firearms, whereas the military would have fully automatic firearms, tear gas guns, grenades, tanks, flame throwers, fuel air bombs, jet fighters, bombers, etc. Sure, the people might make things a bit more difficult before they are “taken over” but with such a tremendous advantage, the military would untimately win.
Unless, of course, a goodly portion of the military took issue with the government’s oppression and decided to fight on the side of the oppressed populace. I mean, couldn’t we expect some of the military to reject the concept of “just following orders”?
Wasn’t the british much more well armed then the American army in the revolutionary war?
well any way I wonder how long either part of, or the entire thread will take before being moved to GD at this point?
I’ve read this idea a lot, but it never seems to happen. Not in any numbers.
Witness Iraq.
Peace,
mangeorge
Phase 42
Let’s suppose a good part of the military refuses to follow orders, then the oppressive government would fail because the superior firepower would be turned against those in power. It would not be because of an armed populace fighting against it.
netscape
The British were better armed than the colonists but it was a matter of quantity of weapons as opposed to the type of weapons. The British and colonists both had muskets, gunpowder, cannon, etc. This would not be the case in modern society. The average citizen cannot own (nor can afford) the firepower the military has.
Again, that is why I think the gun control argument is on very shaky ground. (And I’m a gunowner).
It is my opinion that if the Germans had had guns, they would have used them to kill more Jews. So it’s probably for the best.
You should look up “military coup” sometime. 
Two words: guerilla warfare.
I dont believe hitler disarmed citizens of the german/arian race, but he did disarm the jews. I dont recall many jews complaining about losing the right to bear arms until they were loaded into box cars(too late then).
You might take note that the jews that survived hitler and moved to form the country of Isreal, are not anti-gun any more.
I once read the german gun control laws from the 1920’s and 1930’s, and it didnt seem to outlaw guns, per se, it just regulated them, much like our gun laws - and many parts of the german gun law were very much like the GCA of 1968.
In all, or nearly all, of the cases in the 20th century where a government killed a large part of its population(soviet union, armenia, the Ukrane, Cambodia, armenia, china, africa, Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan, Rwanda etc) the government first took away the right to bear arms.
There must be a reason for any government wanting to disarm its populace before it tries to kill them.
If a citizen is armed, and he takes just one soldier down with him before he himself is killed, that can add up to a lot of soldiers dying. If each jew and conquered/captive in europe had killed just one german before he himself died, our American troops would have had 10 million less germans to fight when we landed at Normandy - it would have made it much easier/needless on/for us to fight a germany with 10 million of its troops killed by jews and poles, etc.
The fact is , that more people have been killed by their own governments in the past century than by foreign invaders, than by criminals, etc combined - but only after they first had their guns taken away.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14331
“About 170 million men, women and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hanged, bombed or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners” in this century, writes University of Hawaii professor R.J. Rummel in his book “Death By Government.”
“It is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague,” he says. But this is plague is a “plague of power.”
Rummel’s estimates of the death toll, remember, are based on documentary evidence, in most cases, provided by governments themselves. Thus, the actual number is probably much higher – perhaps as high as 360 million, he says.
And it is the unarmed civilian population that always pays the highest price. During this century, four civilians died for every soldier killed fighting in wars."
Shoot a soldier who had a machine gun and grenades, and they are now yours.
Quoth Susanann
Well, sort of true. Guns of any kind are strictly licensed here, and you must show why you need that gun in order to get a license for it!
What a load. I doubt this will remain in GQ for long, as the actual question was answered some time ago. The key point in that link seems to be:
“Because history shows us that only an armed and vigilant citizenry stands between freedom and slavery.”
That would explain how the UK and numerous other countries have avoided “slavery”? No, I thought not.
As to the Jews that survived Hitler being pro-gun, that’s another poorly reasoned point. Put those same Jews in a country where they’re not immediately forced to militarise a huge section of the population and where they’re not surrounded by people who really don’t like them and then you might be able to make a point. So you need to have gun ownership stats for Jews in, say, Canada that show higher than average levels.
I’d also like to refer you to the closing paragraph in the SD link, second post:
Allowing that they did in fact legislate to control weapons, which I’m not convinced about, I think that you’ll find this applies to most (if not all) of the situations where you say governments took away the right to bear arms.
I’m a gunowner too, and I’m always surprised at the mentality of other gunowners that an armed populace cannot protect itself from an oppressive government. Are you saying that an unarmed populace would be equally effective, or are you saying that such a struggle would be pointless, a foregone conclusion unworthy of any attempt?
Too often such arguments get bogged down in the physical details of what hardware is available to whom. Lost in the shouting shuffle is the principle of a free and responsible citizenry, determined and able to govern itself. The Second Amendment is but one of ten amendments presented in response to demands from the states for limitations on the power of the central government. Like the other amendments, it says, in essence, that the People have this right, and the Government shall make no law infringing upon this right.
Did Hitler impose gun control laws on the citizens of the Third Reich? Well, no, at least not in a general, overall sense; as has been pointed out, the Nazis instead merely continued administering those laws imposed by the Weimar Republic. Did Hitler impose gun control laws on the Jews in the Third Reich, a segment of the population that he intended to erase from existence, to oppress in the most extreme manner? Yes, he did. At the same time, he imposed laws on the Jews that effectively eliminated every right of the sort we recognize in our Bill of Rights. Clearly, Hitler believed that the wheels of oppression would turn more smoothly if its intended victims were stripped of the right to own a gun.
Not to mention all of the National Guard armories across the country that are relatively unguarded most of the time. You just have to be the first one there and now it’s guarded and you’re well armed.
Another two words: widespread assassination. You can kill a lot of people with a varmint rifle, and you can’t run a dictatorship when your goon squads keep disappearing en route. Of course, you can always use your army, but there’s lots of dissenting people and few soldiers. Hopefully.
Unless of course, a goodly portion of the poulation (gunowners included) doesn’t have much issue with the government oppression (of others people, presumably), and decide to organize armed “patriotic militias” to track down the few who would actually try to fight it and keep an eye on the majority who would just mind its own business.
I mean, couldn’t we expect that the new opppresive government would have some support from someone, or do you expect it to appear overnight, just out of the blues, and without support from anyone, be it within the military or within the population?
Since we’re talking about Hitler, perhaps you should remember that he was voted in by the majority of the population. More gunowners would have meant more armed supporters of the oppressive government.
There are so much assumption in this scenario of the people fighting an opresive governement :
-These (armed) people are massively opposed to the new oppressive government.
-They actually dare to fight the government’s power, rather than say, try to still make a living in a probably hard time, protect their family from the possible consequences of their opposition to the oppressive power, join the side of the oppressor in order to get a good job, just avoid being involved out of fear, etc…Talking about an hypothetical and very unlikely future scenario is a cheap stance to take. Actually risking your (and your family’s) life and well being when things turn really ugly is entirely different.
-These unorganized and poorly armed people somehow manage to fight out an extremely well equipped and modern army, which can rely on sophisticated intelligence, etc…(plus terror, hostage taking, torture, levelling villages and whatnot…they’re oppressors, aren’t they?)
But of course, everyone is allowed to dream…
This thread has strayed from the factual answer to the OP, and has turned into a debate. So, I’m closing this thread. Those wishing to continue the debate are invited to open a thread in Great Debates.
DrMatrix - GQ Moderator