BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 15 Jan 03 - 12:24 PM

BTW Kendall, nobody's ever come for our guns either...

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 15 Jan 03 - 12:24 PM

This may be neither here nor there.... but on the eve of the American Revolution, Lord Dunmore, the Royal Governor of Virginia, fearing rebellion, had all the gunpowder removed from its repository in Williamsburg. And he himself took a boat to the coast, then to England, and never went back.

Nazis or no - one of the first things an oppressive government will try to do is disarm the people, or attempt to find some way to render them essentially defenseless. Debate the 2nd Amendment all you like - but don't ever trust a government that doesn't want you to be able to defend yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Jan 03 - 11:12 PM

And the long line of government officials lining up outside citizens' doors to register/confiscate their firearms is still...nonexistant.

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Neighmond
Date: 14 Jan 03 - 09:30 PM

Louis L'Amour hit it square on the head:

"When the guns get outawed, only outlaws will own them."

No, thanks. I'll keep my rifles and shotguns in my home and do right with them, and mind my business. Should someone wish to take them they will get all the the ammunition they can catch first.


FWIW

Chaz

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Jan 03 - 02:21 PM

When I first had seen this thread I had tried to find some information but without success. Since the relevant link in kat's link above doesn't work, here's a bit of information (from a German pro-weapon's site, BTW) I have found now.

After WWI, several new laws tried to demilitarise the population:
12.12. 1918, 13. 1. 1919, 7. 8. 1920 came three laws granting the citizens freedom from prosecution if they turned over military weapons and proscribing them to do so.

October 1928: New 'law about guns and ammunition' was the first comprehensive German law about weapons. The purchase of guns and ammunition was restricted to those with permits, and only few were eligible for permits (sport shooters, hunters, those endangered..)

This law was made even more restrictive (cutting down the number of those who could get a permit) in the years between 1928 and 1931.

All that was before the Nazis came into power in 1933.

In 1938 the Nazis made a new weapon law with less restrictions. Ammunition and rifles (the choice of word may be suboptimal; all those long-barreled guns are meant you usually hold to your shoulder when firing) could be purchased free. Pistols and military weapons could no be purchased free. However, for actually carrying a gun with you you still needed a permit. And, of course, 'enemies of the state' (read: Jews, communists, opposition) were under no circumstances eligible for the permit).

That's in very short a history of German gun control laws before and after the Nazis came into power. I fail to detect a pattern that could be used for NRA propaganda.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Jan 03 - 01:47 PM

A very late follow-up to Amos' forwarded mail from Australia:

Snopes has marked this as an urban legend and cites some other data:
Here is that article

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Dec 02 - 09:14 AM

"When guns are OUTLAWED, Only the OUTLAWS will have guns".

Actually - leaving aside the assumption that agents of the state would continue to have access to guns when needed - that is tautologically true. Private people with guns would be in fact be outlaws by definition, people who decide to disregard the law.

I noticed in today's paper this little item:

A bar-room brawl over cheating during a pool game erupted into a shooting that left two men dead and three others wounded in the small town of Gibraltar, south of Detroit, Michigan. The shootings were the first homicides anyone could remember in the town, which has only 4,300 inhabitants.

Nice law-abiding peaceful town, like the ones we've had cited in this thread - until suddenly it wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Gareth
Date: 29 Dec 02 - 04:14 AM

MMMMM !!! I think it might be worth pointing out that the countries of Europe over run by the Nazi's betwee 1939 and 1942 had plenty of Guns, in the hands of thier own armed forces.

I think it also worth pointing out how small the actual resistance forces in, say France, were, and how large the collaberationalist element was.

We must also remember that in 1940/41 how bleak and distant any prospect of eventual Liberation was - to an extent collaberation was a matter of survival, and there was a generalised wish for a quiet life and survival. To say that "Barbarossa" and Pearl Harbour came as a beacon of hope to many in Europe is no exageration.

This attituded was not confined to continental Europe, armed resistance, or sabotage in the Channel Islands was actively discouraged by London.

In the case of the Channel Islands the post Liberation political status was not benighted by Governments in exile, and resistance politics manouvering and manipulating history - The consequences of which still devil european democracy.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Troll
Date: 29 Dec 02 - 03:16 AM

I ran a "Google" search on Nazi gun confiscation and came up with this web site: http://www.saveourguns.com/nazirepression.htm.
If the documentation is accurate, Nazi gun confiscation is NOT an Urban Myth or an NRA propaganda piece.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Dec 02 - 02:41 AM

"How would you argue with someone who advocates gun control (not registration and trigger locks, but the illegalization of guns)?" Since when is that what 'gun control' means? Unless you're talking about AK47s and Bazookas.

I read the whole article- and frankly, I'm less than impressed. Passionate, yes; believes what he is saying, probably; correct? I don't think so. He's painting with a really broad brush, and if I were of a different nationality it would probably make me burst out laughing. Bit full of ourselves, aren't we.

I tend to believe that one of America's strengths is our mix of ethnic, racial and cultural influences. Between the lines of Mr. Whittle's diatribe, the white boy syndrome peeks out.

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Troll
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 11:10 PM

Amazing!
Drunks in cars probably kill more people yearly world-wide than do people with guns in America but GUNS are the great killer.
Is this because you simply aren't aware of the facts or is it because you don't want to tackle something that might affect you personally.
After all, if they crack down on drinking drivers, how many of YOU might suffer.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 01:15 AM

Well said, Don. Excellent points about WWII.

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 12:40 AM

Does it matter if the Nazis took away the guns from the population? Underground fighters and sepratists carried on Fifth column actions against the Nazis with various degrees of success with the help of sporting rifles, hand made single shot guns, and captured weapons is probably closer to what really happened.

My knowledge of history is very, very good. But I have to say that I don't know the minutia of the Freedom Fighters in Europe during the second world war. I don't know the local and regional history of France or Germany, or Spain or Holland. I know of the Maquis but very little beyond that they existed and were a thorn in side of the German Occupation of France and Belgium.

Could they have one the war alone and overcome the Nazi military? It is doubtful. It is doubtful whether it would have happened if they Freedom Fighters had their own weapons and saw the war coming. Without British and American Armies in Europe the German military would have subjugated the continent and probably attacked the US mainland ion time.

There is just too much more to consider than whether or not private gun ownership would have stopped the war in Europe if the populations had their own guns. Such as, did the private population have their own tanks, flamethrowers, grenade launchers, and light and heavy machine guns? It would have taken more that some bird guns and schutzen rifles to stop the German military.

I am a gun owner and I won't give up my guns if asked. I have a right to own them and I am no a criminal. It has nothing to do with protecting my country against enemies foreign or domestic. It has to do with a government that I help to elect every year deciding it knows better than the founding fathers as to what my rights are and ought to be. Give up one right for some altruistic principal and you have lost all your rights.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 12:12 AM

They didn't have boxcutters, either. Anyway, it's not exactly a red herring. He was contrasting the passiveness of other cases -- notably German Jews -- with Todd Beamer's spirit in refusing to go down without a fight. I don't know how good a parallel that is. That parallel if valid is not about guns but about the individual spirit.

I believe the marginal count you refer to is less about handguns than it is about dysfuncitonal people, a small per centage of whom resort to violence, some with guns. How many broken minds and lost souls are we willing to have in our society is probably a more central question. I certainly don't stand in favor of dissident Americans taking up arms against any government we have had so far in this country. IS there a line beyond which I would not be pushed? Probably, depending on circumstances, but don't ask me to say where it is because I do not know and the answer would have to be situational, not abstract, to have any meaning.

I personally prefer to be able to own a gun, should I ever feel the necessity was on me to do so. That would never (well, hardly ever) occur in the type of community I live in, although we have had a few murders over the last decade and once had a car bomb (right here in River City!)

The issue is not an easy one. And I have no pat position or answer to it. But I will say that I prefer not to have a gun by the exercise of choice. A choice I prefer to be trusted with as a conscious and free adult.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: TIA
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 11:29 PM

Sorry Amos, honestly not trying to be cutesy. Simply meant to say that there are now man-portable (no offense women, but it is generally the guys who love the guns) weapons with more destructive force than ever dreamed of 200 years ago. I can't imagine that Jefferson truly intended for every American to own a bazooka. And, if he didn't, he would surely approve of some level of sensible gun control that did not necessarily lead to total confiscation of all guns.

And, you were right, I at least had not followed your blue cliky, so I just did. Two phrases caught my eye:

1) "...we are willing to put up with handgun murders [to preserve the right to unrestricted ownership of guns}..."
My question in response is, how many handgun murders? At some level, is it no longer a fair trade?

2)the author says that we need to own guns so that we are not led passively to our deaths (like Jews in Germany, or Russians in the Gulag, etc.), and then cites Todd Beamer as an example of American unwillingness to be led to slaughter. This is a total red herring -- the heroic Todd Beamer and his compatriots DID NOT HAVE GUNS! I know, I know, the NRA response to this is "aha! you're saying we should outlaw bare hands!"

Bottom line, while the essay was certainly though provoking, it does not sway my (open) mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 10:28 PM

Street sweepers? Huh?   TIA, you're being quite too subtle for my poor brain!

Bobert -- I'm not quite sure I understand -- do you think that if guns were outlawed, that criminals would comply with the orders to dispose of them? That outlaws would agree not to possess guns?

If not, then who else besides the outlaws would have guns? The authorized police force, I suppose.

Honest, now, did you actually read that essay I linked to? It is serious food for thoughtt, regardless of the NRA. In fact the guy who wrote it, like me, is not even a gun owner.    Tell you what -- read it carefully with an open mind and tell me what you think, huh?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: TIA
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 10:21 PM

Murray is entirely correct. The homcides with firearms in the state of Victoria could have been a grand total of three (a calm night in any major US city).

Mcgrath of Harlow also dead on. Did our founding fathers really think it a good idea for every American to own a street sweeper? I sure wish the NRA could ask them.

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 09:47 PM

Amos, the Aussie figures you quote may well be significant, but you simply cannot quote percentages without giving actual numerical totals.

Ask any statistician.

But, as I say, your figures may be significant.

Murray

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 09:39 PM

Ditto, ARTBROOKS! The lies by the NRA are gettin' a tad tiresome. "When guns are OUTLAWED, Only the OUTLAWS will have guns". That is one of the three biggest LIES of all time. It's pathetic!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: kendall
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 09:24 PM

My gun is registered, and no one has come for it, or for me. What am I doing wrong? I feel left out.

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 09:05 PM

The thing is, it's a whole lot harder to kill a whole bunch of people with a baseball bat than with an automatic rifle, or even with a handgun.

The kind of weapons they had back in the 18th Century were muzzle-loading pistols and single shot muskets and so forth. And swords of course. That's the kind of weaponry the people drawing up that amendment had in mind - so why take it any further and extend its range to cover all the other inconceivable weapons that have been dreamed up since?

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 08:36 PM

I'm sorry -- there was a cut and paste glitch in the link to the Second Amendment essay I referred to above. The URL is :


http://www.rachellucas.com/archives/000218.html#000218

and this link should take you there.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 08:32 PM

Well the following is not sophistry and purposrts to be factual information. I offer it for what it is worth.

But if you want the clearest exposition I have ever seen on the real values behind our 2s Amendment position on guns, you need to read this page: .

---

Forwarded message:

From:   Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia.


Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from "Down Under". It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent   In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.   (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not , and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.   There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience proves it.   Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. (Take note Americans, before it's too late!)

---

I'd like to hear from any Aussies out there whether this seems like real data or not.

I am not a gun owner or a gun user. But I am a very concerned citizen of a once-free nation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Pied Piper
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 08:48 AM

And anonymous amateur philosophers cause meaningless sophistry.

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 08:36 AM

An interesting point that I rarely see mentioned in this interminable discussion is that NOBODY IS INTERESTED IN TAKING GUNS AWAY except for a small fringe that would be greatly outnumbered in any election by, if I may use the expression, the pro-gun folks. The "government", whoever that is, has no interest in confiscating guns. Police departments would certainly like to get them out of the hands of criminals, but otherwise has no interest in confiscating guns. Saying that gun registration is a precurser to confiscating guns makes about as much sense as saying that car registration is preliminary to confiscating cars. NOBODY WANTS YOUR GUNS, DAMMIT. Collect them, show them off to your friends, hang them on your wall, hunt, target shoot. Guess what? Nobody cares.

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 08:09 AM

* The term "liberal" is quite misused these days. In actuality, "liberal" means standing for less restrictions and more individual freedoms. Unfortunately, as used today it stands for those who want to have the government control all aspects of its citizen's lives and thoughts, and to provide for them under the guise of "protecting" them from all harm or "hardship"--more like socialism than true liberalism. The "bleeding hearts" I talk about are those who moan and groan when anyone suggests that people show some self-responsibility for their own actions or a little self-reliance, and who also seem to fear those who do try to take control of their own lives and carry their own weight.

If guns cause crime, then logic follows without question that; cameras cause pornography, matches cause arson, automobiles cause accidents, bathing suits cause drowning, computers cause email, baseball bats cause home runs, blenders cause margaritas, elections cause corruption and, of course, grandmothers cause adultery.

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Pied Piper
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 08:00 AM

Edged devices, Baseball bats, Ballpeen hammers, Tire Irons, Hands, are designed for other purposes then than killing; guns are not.
Simple. PP

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 08:20 PM

Hey Michael! It probably is off the point (for you) but in my small town, we had our first murder, ever! It was done with a... knife!

Hmmmm. do you suppose we should register edged devices? Baseball bats? Ballpeen hammers? Tire Irons? Hands?

"Fingerprinting" as has been suggested (or any other kind of method of keeping track of firearms) works ONLY if all firearms, of any kind are so tracked. ALL. The best way to keep firearms from being used in crimes is to confiscate ALL firearms NOW! All!

The half/assed suggestions that have been made with an eye to keeping guns from being used in crime are easily made a joke of because they can't work in the way they are touted to work. Do you have any idea of how lucrative blackmarket sales of guns is NOW? do you really want to create another travesty such as Prohibition, honored more in the breach? To BOLSTER the power of the criminal by giving him yet another money making scam?

People get killed with guns (and many other things) A great many gun related deaths are due to ignorance, stupidity, physical and psychological impairment due to drugs or alcolhol. Many are the handy device grabbed at the height of rage!

I know that guns scare you and I don't know why but I accept that you ARE scared. But don't assume, because YOU are scared, that we all have to share that fear. I don't fear guns. I live in a community where there are a great many more guns available than where you live (I would guess, anyway). Perhaps you live where there are many violent acts, guns used, driveby shootings, hold-ups, mom killing dad killing mom killing sonny killing sis killing (goes on ya know) It is rare here where I live. Maybe we have less anxiety, less pressures, more consideration of others' rights! Maybe my microcosm is made up of reasonable, kind and respectful people. People who believe in good and do good when ever they can.

Maybe what is REALLY needed is for the American people to grow up, take responsibility and pass the noble values of our founding fathers on to their offspring. Guns have a purpose. They are "tools" if you will and the RESPONSIBLE use of any tool should be stressed along with the purpose of it's use.

The NRA? Well they seem a bit strident to me at times, but I also understand that THEY are afraid, too. They have tried very hard to present calm, cogent, arguments. The issue, though, has been taken out of the arena of calm, rational debate and escalated by hyperbole into an emotinal free-for-all. Something that you and your supporters are as guilty of as is the NRA.

CB

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: toadfrog
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 07:44 PM

Joe Offer: I think you miss the point. The gun owners' argument is not that taking away guns is evil because tne Nazis allegedly did it, but that an armed populace is a guaranty of freedom and that "tyrants," like the Nazis, realize this and so will always take people's guns away. Several people above have stated that this argument is mistaken, and I agree. But because this is the argument, the facts are important and the point is not frivolous.

Doug R: It appears probable that there are no documents in the archives saying that the Nazis did, or did not take the guns away. That isn't conclusive, because presumably documents disappeared in the confusion at the end of the War, or could have been suppressed. But the absence of witnesses actually stating that guns were taken would be conclusive.

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 05:33 PM

Haven't seen Bowling for Columine yet...

Guns kill a lot of innocent people. This is wrong.

Maybe we need stiffer penalties for people who use guns to kill innocents and commit crimes... WAY STIFFER!

Maybe the media sponsored "gun gotten riches and mercinary sex" scenes ought to be curtailed completely...

How about a corporate America that induces feelings of kindness and environmental peace and goodwill?

What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?

Isn't it about time that the nice guts finnish first? ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 03:49 PM

I just don't understand the American male fixation with guns. It's beyond me. They have no other purpose than the bringing of death.
Michael Moore, bless his little cotton socks..says it all. Think on!


Dear friends,

Yesterday, Larry Bennett, a 16-year old, was shot in the head after he was
involved in a minor traffic accident. You probably didn't hear about it
because, well, how could he be dead if he wasn't shot by The Sniper?

Yesterday, an unidentified woman was shot to death in her car in Fenton,
MI. You probably didn't hear about it because she had the misfortune of not
being shot by The Sniper.

Two nights ago, Charles D. Bennett, 48, an apartment security guard, was
shot to death after confronting two teenagers in his parking lot in
Memphis, TN. You probably didn't hear about it because the sniper was too
busy sleeping in his car that night, and thus, poor Charles was not shot by
The Sniper.

Yes, The Sniper has apparently been caught, so we can go back now to NOT
reporting the DOZENS of gun deaths that occur every day, the ones that just
aren't newsworthy because they happen in all those old boring ways --
unlike the ways of The Sniper, who was interesting and creative and
exciting and scary! He played so much better on the news.

Of course, had Congress not caved in to the NRA, we would have known after
the first HOUR of the first day of the killings three weeks ago that the
rifle those bullets were coming out of belonged to John Williams/Mohammad.
Many more people died needlessly after that day, and every one of their
deaths could have probably been prevented had we had a national ballistics
fingerprinting data base.

Thank you, Mr. Heston for this unnecessary carnage. Thank you, Mr. Bush,
for supporting Mr. Heston and his group's agenda -- which protects only the
criminals.

If everyone reading this letter (and you now number in the millions) would
share this fact with just one person who is thinking of skipping going to
the polls on Nov. 5th, I believe that on Nov. 6th, Mr. Bush will have
neither the Senate nor the House doing his or Heston's bidding. Americans
don't like people who assist serial killers in being able to ratchet up
their kills because The Sniper knows that his bullets are prohibited by law
from being traced to his gun.

That, in a nutshell, is what the NRA is all about -- and I implore all
responsible gun owners and hunters to join with me in putting an end to the
NRA agenda once and for all. Don't give Bush his majority on November 5th.
He's already seen to it that his cronies in big business have wiped out
your 401 (K), and they are doing their best to see that you are left with
no pension at all. That alone should be reason enough to NOT pull a single
lever for a Republican on Nov. 5th. Send a message. Do something brave.

Yours,

Michael Moore
[e-mail]
www.michaelmoore.com

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Penny S.
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 02:27 PM

I'm not sure about the Werewolf group at the end of WWII, but the original word was not to do with war. Or only obliquely, via testosterone. In the earliest form of English, the noun which was to become 'man' meant both male and female, like 'homo' in Latin. It was modified to 'wifman', which became 'woman', analogous to 'femina', and to 'wereman' for the male, analogous to 'vir' in Latin. And 'were' is very closely related to 'vir'. It just means a male human.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the thread, except that it may be another urban myth.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 12:19 PM

Fascinating excerpts! Curiously enough, Hitler did manage to forge an extremely determined nation by the late 30's, and his armed forces showed extraordinary initiative and resolution on the battlefield, thoroughly outfighting their opponents most of the time in the early years. (It has to be said that the British showed equal resolution, but it took them a little longer to modernize their tactical ideas to match the Wermacht). It's a pity that all that "spirit" and will that Hitler rhapsodizes about was harnessed toward such destructive and misguided purposes...but he was a very disturbed individual.

Had the Nazis won, generations since would no doubt be eulogizing their heroism to the skies, and their crimes would have been sanitized neatly out of the history books. Such things have happened before.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 12:06 PM

I don't collect guns – but gather, take apart, study things far more dangerous – books. Neither guns… nor ideas…are deadly unto themselves. A belief in false knowledge, one built without facts - is truly dangerous.

Today, this company is one of the largest publishers of secondary-level textbooks in the United States.

Hitler, Adolf, Mein Kampf, Translated by Ralph Manheim, Houghton Mifflin-Riverside Press, (eighteenth printing) 1943.

(previous publications in 1923, 1925)

(p 332) "The German people had more than enough arms before. They were not able to secure freedom because the energies of the national instinct of self-preservation, the will for self-preservation, were lacking. The best weapon is dead, worthless material as long as the spirit is lacking which is ready, willing and determined to use it. Germany became defenseless, not because arms were lacking, but because the will was lacking to guard the weapon for national survival."

(p 332)"…the question of regaining German power is not: How shall we manufacture arms? but: How shall we manufacture the spirit which enables a people to bear arms? If this spirit dominates a people, the will finds a thousand ways, every one of which ends in a weapon! But give a coward ten pistols and if attacked he will not be able to fire a single shot. And so for him they are more worthless than a knotted stick for a courageous man."

(p 519) "Every national body can be divided into three great classes: into an extreme of the best humanity on the one hand, good in the sense of possessing all virtues, especially distinguished by courage and self-sacrifice; on the other hand, an extreme of the worst human scum, bad in the sense that all selfish urges and vices are present. Between the two extremes there lies a third class, the great, broad, middle stratum, in which neither brilliant heroes nor the basest criminal mentality is embodied."

(Emphasizes in the book)

p 519-520) "Times when a nation is rising are distinguished, in fact exist only, by the absolute leadership of the extreme best part.

Times of normal, even development or of a stable state of affairs are distinguished and exist by the obvious domination of the elements of the middle, in which the two extremes mutually balance one another, or cancel on another.

Times when a nation is collapsing are determined by the dominant activity of the worst elements.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: DougR
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 11:57 AM

I wonder why it is so difficult to find documentation regarding whether or not the Nazis confiscated firearms? Are there no official archives somewhere that would support one view or the other?

I do remember a returning veteran in my hometown returning from Germany with a fine hunting rifle he had "liberated." So evidently if they did confiscate firearms, they didn't get them all.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 11:45 AM

I think the NRA simply cooked up a myth there...a convenient one. Knowing how popular sport hunting and shooting was in Germany it sounds absolutely beyond belief to me that any German government could possibly have contemplated or accomplished confiscation of all privately owned guns from the general public. Furthermore I have seen photos of Germans with hunting rifles during the war years, going out to bag a partridge or a wild boar. So obviously their guns were not confiscated, were they?

Dictatorships seem to manage fine whether or not the population has access to guns. It just depends on the particular cultural conditions at hand in the particular country. The government can usually marshall a hell of a lot more firepower, after all, than the citizenry can. I can just see the NRA zealouts taking on the US military...ha! ha!

Rambo only exists in the movies.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: The Pooka
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 05:31 AM

DonMeixner - "I don't belong to the NRA or the IRA or the NBA or the FHA." LOL!! heeheehee / O, SO HE'S A *LONER* IZZIT!! Very suspicious. Initially, at least. Get me the ATF on the phone. / Me, I thought black powder was that damn stuff in the copier. Fires them muskets an' I cut young 'arkins t'roat! Ha-HARRR!

You make good points Don. As always. I envy your skilled craftsmanship. Fine firearms, like musical instruments, are surely works art. Fortunately, the instruments aren't lethal. / Well. Apart from me tin whistle. :) Woops, here's my train. Late again, thank God. Gotta go.

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: alanabit
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 04:12 AM

The Nazis undoubtedly had widespread support - probably passive more than active. It was probably not a majority of the population but simply one of the larger parties. Remeber, their electoral support was declining when Hindenbeurg handed ppower to Hitler. However, the issue of Jews having guns removed is a red herring. For a start, most Jews saw themselves as Germans first and Jews second - hardly a basis on which to organise armed resistance. The first real armed resistance of any real note did not happen until the Warsaw Ghetto uprising towards the end of the war - and by then the fate of the Third Reich had effectively been sealed. Armed uprising by the Jews was more likely wishful thinking on the part of the Nazis. Nothing would have given them a freer hand and more support for genocide from the general population. They were so desperate for "motives" to attack Jews, that they invented myths like the "Jewish" destruction of the Reichstag and the bullshit of the Horst Wessels "legend".

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: GUEST,Dave Williams
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 01:45 AM

I agree with CB that there was widespread support for National Socialism _in_ Germany.

And the way I heard the story was that the invading Wehrmacht used the registration records to round up and confiscate privately owned arms in the _captive_ nations, not in Germany. Obviously, disarming the citizens of an invaded nation would make a whole lot of sense, and having all the privately owned arms registered would make it much easier to accomplish.

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 01:16 AM

I am probably mistaken but I don't believe that the Nazi government had much fear that their populace was going to take privately owned guns and throw them out of power. It seems that the populace, as a whole, supported the Nazis. Towards the end, there were some who vowed to keep fighting the "allies" regardless of official surrender. The Werewolf come to mind. I suspect that the reason the "allies" confiscated guns was their concern that other groups such as the Werewolf might crop up. Werewolf (I may be mis-spelling it) translates as WAR-wolf, by the way.

Americans are probably the most heavily armed populace in the world, next to the Afgans at least. Quite a few of us are pretty fair shots, believing that 'true' gun control is being able to hit your target.

I can't say whether our ownership of firearms has or will ever had and effect on the plans of tyrants. Some of us do take comfort in the notion that it would. See the film "Red Dawn".

CB

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 01:10 AM

The secret of Benito's success as a track coach was the fact that his team trained while running down the railroad track, trying to catch the on-time train, while being chased by NRA members carrying all those guns his buddy Adolph confiscated.

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 01:05 AM

I own several guns. I own a very nice Schutzen Rifle made strictly for target shooting by a german gunsmith in Syracuse New York in about 1890. It is a muzzle loading black powder rifle which was very rare at that time. I own a side by side Parker Double 12 and a very nice Steven's Model 12. I have a 45-70 trap door Springfield with the 1884 modifications. I also have a model 1897 Winchester .32 special. They are all brilliant in design and prime examples of a unique artform.

Do I need to own them? No. But I don't need to own 6 guitars, 4 banjos, seven autoharps or 3,445 comic books.   They are owned by me and it is my right to own them. Just as it is my right to freely own the land beneath my house.

    I belong to no militia and have no intention of joining any militias. I don't belong to the NRA or the IRA or the NBA or the FHA.

    What is the relevance of this thread? The sniper? He would have figured away to kill people what ever weapons where at hand. Remember Tim Mc Veigh used no weapons at all. He used fertilizer and motor oil. He was lucky he was able to buy that rifle he did. He should have failed the back ground check. The system failed. Enforce the laws we have in place and he would have not been able to by that .223 Bushmaster.

I disagree that anyone who wants to should be able to own a pistol and carry it on the street openly and shoot badguys to protect old ladies and small dogs. You need a liscense and insurance to drive a car, there ought to be at least minimal training to own a pistol and I think pistols should require insurance.

   Long guns are different deal. I used to hunt these guns. Now they are antigues and pieces of art. The Zenn oftarget shooting is interesting to study. And it can be relaxing.

If the government and a bunch of well meaning ninnies want to take away my guns they can and I can't stop them probably. But with the training and skills I have I can make my self another about as quickly as I can build a guitar.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 12:37 AM

Mussolini ACTUALLY made the Runners TRAIN on time. Hell of a track coach.

Cheers

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 12:32 AM

Mussolini made the trains run on time.
Mussolini was a Fascist.
Therefore, people who are on time are Fascists.

-Joe Offer, perennially late-

..and my point is the same as what several people pointed out above. It really doesn't make a difference if Hitler disarmed the public or not. Firearms control has to be argued on its own merits, not on the character or lack of character who have done it. Even bad people do good things sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: toadfrog
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 12:19 AM

Well, we have conclusive proof of the efficacy of 2d Amendment rights as a bar to Tyranny--Afghanistan, where everybody has a gun and nobody is shy about using them! Individuals with sporting weapons may not be able to overcome the Black Helicopters of the Trilateralist Conspiracy. But a few Well Regulated Militias, under able leaders like Ismail Khan and those other guys (whose names are on the tip of my tounge) armed with tanks, jet fighters and heavy artillery, could bring down those Tyrants whenever they get uppity. Look at Afghanistan! The Taliban just blown away, and without too much foreign assistance! We could have that in America, too. Just think of it! The thrill of owning your own private army! Of walking down the middle of the street, trusty comrades at your side, Uzis and burp-guns at the ready! The thrill of blowing people away if they look at you cross-eyed! The thrill of running those scoundrels out of Washington!

The only problem is, like Afghanistan, that would make it awfully easy for foreigners to step in and take over.

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Bluesmike
Date: 26 Oct 02 - 08:35 PM

Following the Port Arthur massacre several years ago where a madman killed 33 people the Australian government instituted a general amnesty on firearms as well as a buy back scheme. Following that it became illegal to own semi automatic and automatic long arms.
Last week another idiot shot two classmates at a university in Victoria using handguns obtained through pistol clubs. There is anow a debate about whether to have a buy back of Handguns.
Farmers are allowed to own licenced bolt action or single shot guns for controlling pests. There is also a considerable kangaroo and rabbit meat industry in this country necessitating limited licenced gun ownnership.
Australia has the lowest murder rate where guns are involved of any country in the world. I have been a professional kangaroo shooter and fully support the eradication of unnecessary firearm ownership. Professional shooters have a very low opinion of so called 'sporting shooters. killing animals is not fun and anyone who thinks it is should take a real long hard look at themselves.
Finally Australia is probably the most egalitarian freedom loving country there is. no extremist government would get a look in here so to try to Justify the NRA tactic of making and comparison to NAZI Germany is crazy

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: The Pooka
Date: 26 Oct 02 - 08:31 PM

I would disagree with the proposition that an armed German Jewry could not have put up much resistance anyway. Oh, they couldn't have *won* without outside help which of course wasn't, and wouldn't have been, forthcoming until too late. But they would've taken quite a few SS down with 'em. / I suspect that the supposed mass passivity of the Reich's Jews is, if not an urban legend, at least exaggerated in the popular belief. / In any case, to the extent that they *were* docile, their descendants, thank G*d, have learned the lesson, haven't they? - "Never Again". Even if so inclined, & all anti-Zionist polemics aside, one would *not* be wise to attempt the Final Solution now. Nonono. You've heard of Israel's "Samson Option" nuclear doctrine? And, can you blame them?? I can't.

The civilian-disarmament-by-Nazis issue is an interesting one historically; but I question its relevance to the present day. Even assuming arguendo (and however unlikely it is, given the record) that their facts are correct, I think the NRA has set up a straw-man chop-logic argument --- and liberals then fall into the trap by pinning too much on refutation of the facts, ignoring the false logic. The Nazis disarmed the populace; ergo, all gun control equals tyranny. False -- even if Hitler DID do it, or attempt to. The argument is largely emotional; i.e., a non-argument.

Also of course the NRA position apparently implies that today, a civilian militia equipped armed with sidearms & rifles could prevent the establishment of a government dictatorship backed by the U.S. military. Right. Git the .45, Maw, there's more helicopter gunships comin' in. (No offense, Banjoest. I own one .357, myself. When I got it, there was a very specific reason. But, it wasn't to uphold the Rights of Man against the fed-ruhl gummint's tanks & bombers.)

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: DougR
Date: 26 Oct 02 - 08:24 PM

I read the info provided by kat. It appears to me that the Nazi may not have confiscated firarms from the general population, but you evidently had to be licensed to own one. It seems the same to me as gun registration which many, perhaps most, gun owners in the U. S. do not favor. Through licensing, the Nazi officials knew where the guns were.

I think those opposed to gun control in the U. S. would object strenously to licensing of firearms.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 02 - 07:39 PM

What are the British (and Scottish) regulations on sporting arms?

Subject: RE: BS: Did Nazis really take the guns?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 26 Oct 02 - 07:33 PM

Bear in mind that the government has already done it here in UK despite the fact that the shooting was one of the few things we could do fairly well in the olympics