Say the words "gun registration" to many pro-gun Americans and you are likely to hear that one of the first things that Hitler did when he seized power was to impose strict gun registration requirements that enabled him to identify gun owners and then to confiscate all guns, effectively...
scholarship.law.columbia.edu
Following Germany's defeat in World War I, the Weimar Republic passed very strict gun control laws in an attempt both to stabilize the country and to comply with the Versailles Treaty of 1919 – laws that in fact required the surrender of all guns to the government. These laws remained in effect until 1928, when the German parliament relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm-licensing scheme. These strict licensing regulations foreshadowed Hitler's rise to power.
If you read the 1938 Nazi gun laws closely and compare them to earlier 1928 Weimar gun legislation – as a straightforward exercise of statutory interpretation – several conclusions become clear. First, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power.
The difficult question is how to characterize the Nazi treatment of the Jewish population for purposes of evaluating Hitler's position on gun control. Truth is, the question itself is absurd. The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population. Their treatment of Jews is, in this sense, orthogonal to their gun-control views. Nevertheless, if forced to take a position, it seems that the Nazis aspired to a certain relaxation of gun registration laws for the "law-abiding German citizen" – for those who were not, in their minds, "enemies of the National Socialist state," in other words, Jews, Communists, etc.
Nazi laws systematically disarmed so-called "unreliable" persons, especially Jews while relaxing restrictions for Nazi party members. The policies were later expanded to include the confiscation of arms in occupied countries.
Nazi laws systematically disarmed so-called "unreliable" persons, especially Jews while relaxing restrictions for Nazi party members. The policies were later expanded to include the confiscation of arms in occupied countries.
Not talking about order of magnitude talking about order of escalation. The point being made is that guns are removed before other things are removed like basic human rights.
This appears to be quite true.
Not talking about order of magnitude talking about order of escalation. The point being made is that guns are removed before other things are removed like basic human rights.
This appears to be quite true.
How about... instead of taking someone's word for it they aren't crazy, you actually make sure they aren't crazy.
It would probably eliminate a lot of gun fetishists because most of you guys are a few tacos short of a combination platter.
The Constitution is about Militias, not guns. The word Gun doesn't even appear.
If you want to say the word "Arms" gives you a right to guns, why doesn't it give you a right to Anthrax, a tactical nuke, or some nerve gas?
Why can't we all walk down the street carrying swords?
Oh, that's right, because we have laws "infringing" on your ability to do such things.
If the Constitution is about militias, why did the founders, just after the passage of the Constitution, allow the people to retain their right to own a firearm?
Didn't they understand the document they just passed?
Sooo..... It seems to be a precursor that's what the so is. I couldn't tell you about gun rights in 1933 US.... What I do know is that an Agrarian society at that time valued them as much as they valued a mule or a pitchfork. It was just another farm tool.
If the Constitution is about militias, why did the founders, just after the passage of the Constitution, allow the people to retain their right to own a firearm?
Didn't they understand the document they just passed?
If the Constitution is about militias, why did the founders, just after the passage of the Constitution, allow the people to retain their right to own a firearm?
Didn't they understand the document they just passed?
It was never just about militias.... There is no militia without the people. The idea that it was restricted only to organized paramilitary organizations is an attempt to overthrow the second amendment and disarm the American public. Of course they will heartbleed with all of the stories about shootings as if this were something new.
Government eventually becomes Leviathan... Leviathan loathes anything that supports Independence.
"Gee, we don't know what drugs he is on, let's put a knee on his neck for nine minutes!"
Who is DAN? never mind. The jury saw all those videos, too, and they sent Chauvin to prison for 22 years.
If they are crazy or mentally unstable, you betcha. Joker Holmes was a lawful citizen until he shot up the movie theater. Adam Lanza was a lawful citizen until he shot up Sandy Hook.
How about some effective ones?
Most of those 20K gun laws are things like, "Don't discharge your gun in an urban area".
About 10 years ago, my neighbor broke that law and shot out his patio window. Then he lied to the cops and told them someone shot at him. (Quickly discounted by the pattern of the glass shards.) Well, the cops didn't confiscate his gun (even though that bullet could have very well hit someone in the complex's parking lot.) A few weeks later, he shot himself.
So you want to disarm anyone you THINK could misuse a firearm? My guess would be that almost every liberal would start banning conservatives from gun ownership.
It was never just about militias.... There is no militia without the people. The idea that it was restricted only to organized paramilitary organizations is an attempt to overthrow the second amendment and disarm the American public. Of course they will heartbleed with all of the stories about shootings as if this were something new.
Government eventually becomes Leviathan... Leviathan loathes anything that supports Independence.
Sooo..... It seems to be a precursor that's what the so is. I couldn't tell you about gun rights in 1933 US.... What I do know is that an Agrarian society at that time valued them as much as they valued a mule or a pitchfork. It was just another farm tool.
It's not the government I'm worried about here. I worry about the lunatic who is going to burst into a mall or a workplace I happen to be at and start shooting the place up because no one bothered to determine if he was sane enough to have a gun
Your problem is that you believe medical science is advanced enough to determine who will go crazy and who will not. And if you are wrong in your determination, you are denying a person a right based on nothing more than a guess.
So you want to disarm anyone you THINK could misuse a firearm? My guess would be that almost every liberal would start banning conservatives from gun ownership.
There's no good reason for any civilian to own a gun. Guns in the home are more dangerous than the criminals they are supposed to protect against, and any fool who thinks he needs him a gun to fights the gummit is a ******* idiot.
But here's the thing... you guys have it in reverse. You think that Adam Lanza has a right to a gun all the way up until the moment he guns down 20 preschoolers and six teachers. That's just crazy talk.
Your problem is that you believe medical science is advanced enough to determine who will go crazy and who will not. And if you are wrong in your determination, you are denying a person a right based on nothing more than a guess.
Not a problem at all. Most crazy people who shoot a place up, everyone in their lives knew they were crazy, and a thorough background check would have determined that.
When I applied for my job, or tried to get a mortgage, or sponsored my wife for a green card, I underwent a thorough background check. Had to submit hundreds of pages of documentation.
When I applied for my IL FOID card, I pinky swore I wasn't a crazy person or a criminal.
There's no good reason for any civilian to own a gun. Guns in the home are more dangerous than the criminals they are supposed to protect against, and any fool who thinks he needs him a gun to fights the gummit is a ******* idiot.
But here's the thing... you guys have it in reverse. You think that Adam Lanza has a right to a gun all the way up until the moment he guns down 20 preschoolers and six teachers. That's just crazy talk.
History has taught us that conditions change, even in the most stable of countries. And history has also taught us that defending yourself against tyranny using only sidearms is doable. Unless you figure that our government will simply carpet bomb their own country to get rid of the patriots.
scholarship.law.columbia.edu
