What Hitler really said… the same thing the Founders said…

Saw this on Facebook…

20130116-094830.jpg

Of course, he never actually said that…

So, this is what Hitler actually said:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their fall by doing so.

As know, Hitler had gun control only for the subject races. He actually loosened gun laws for Germans. But, then again, who cares about facts when anyone can make up an anti-Obama quote and give it to Hitler.

But, this brings to mind a recent article about the Founders.

“In this state,” he said, “there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free.”

There a lot of quotes going around from the Founders about gun control, but rarely are contexts applied. Mason, who seems to favor individual guns for the defense against a tyrannical threat, in better context, is shown for what he was actually saying. Oddly enough, gun control again became an issue in the 1960’s when the Civil Rights movement was reaching a zenith. Why? Because suddenly white guys realizes that black guys could get guns.

So, please, continue to post anti-Obama memes involving Hitler… But when History is known, the many of the Founders were more closely aligned with Hitler on the race issue, and thus arming the “subject races” than you really want to know.

Post By Joel Watts (10,115 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

44 thoughts on “What Hitler really said… the same thing the Founders said…

  1. On the other hand, we saw what having assault weapons and high capacity magazines did for the mother of the murderer in Connecticut. “Some trust in chariots” and all that stuff.

    Going for the extremes to make points ignores the facts in the middle that will make us safer. And, considering that Republicans and the NRA supported gun control in California (signed by Gov. Reagan) when Black Activists openly carried weapons, I see a hell of lot of hypocrites right now.

  2. “As know, Hitler had gun control only for the subject races. He actually loosened gun laws for Germans.”

    Even if we have specific laws on Jews, in Germany the possession of weapons was denied to all the enemies of the state. Nazis ordered all people to return the weapons in their possession. Then the police had the task when giving the licence to decide who fell in the definition of enemy of the state and this was done of course with absolute discretion.

    • Would you mind providing, first, proof that this is actually the case – the all people part and second, how this is different from, say, denying illegal immigrants or those on the terrorist watch lists from owning weapons?

      • Would you mind providing, first, proof that this is actually the case that ‘Hitler had gun control ONLY for the subject races’ ? what about political enemies?

          • if your source is snopes.com I have read it; it seems that Hitler loosened gun ownership rules for non-Jewish Germans. But if the ban was only for the Jews, this means that all the other Germans (including political opponents) had greater access to guns. Now two possibility: Hitler was wrong and a bit confused in making the law or there is something wrong in what I read in snopes.com.

          • I went to school in Austria, and the Hapsburgs were usually seen as Mandela is in South Africa. I don’t remember a lot, but I DO remember that the Weimar had made gun restrictions to the open-ended “enemy of the state”. As far as I know, Hitler just made new gun owners register their guns with a serial number.
            But he had a 90% approval rating, so whatever he said, people did. It was definitely a cult of personality. My grandmother still called him one of the greatest leaders ever until the day she died. She was born in the same province as him (Linz). She (and most people from her generation) saw the holocaust only as an unavoidable result of war.Remember though, there were no camps within the boundaries of the empire, since it was illegal and also the Catholic church raised him up as an example of Catholic maturity. Interestingly, Hitler always stayed within the law. Only in Germany is Hitler spoken with disdain. In Austria his name is still respected, maybe not the same as it was, but his leadership style is highly respected.

    • I would suggest that Joel’s interpretation of events is more closely aligned with what happened than yours.~One needs to compare the Weimar Republic laws on gun control from 1928 with those passed by the Nazi administration in 1938.

      In 1938 the previous 1928 (Weimar) law was revised so that “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition” – see Harcourt, Bernard E (2004). “trustworthiness” was already a test for gun control in 1928, a test that could be used to exclude political opponents from owning weapons. This was no different under the Weimar Republic OR the Nazi regime.

      There was a specific 1938 regulation passed restricted Jews explicitly from acquiring, or possessing weapons or ammunition therefore.: http://jpfo.org/images02/NaziWeaponLaw1800x2667.gif , note that the previous test of “trustworthiness” remained unchanged.

      I take the following from Harcourt (Chicago public law and legal theory working paper no. 67): if one reads the Nazi gun laws closely and compares them to earlier German gun legislation, as a straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation, several conclusions become clear. First, the Nazi regime reenacted in 1938 strict gun control laws and regulations that required licensing and reporting for the acquisition, transfer, or carrying of handguns, and for dealing and manufacturing in firearms and ammunition.
      In this respect, the Nazis had in place stringent gun regulation, including strict reporting requirements. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. In this respect, the Nazi gun laws were more restrictive than those under the Weimar Republic. Third, 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 Nazi gun laws of 1938 reflect a liberalization of the gun control measures that had been enacted by the Weimar Republic with respect to the acquisition, transfer, and carrying of firearms. In this regard, Hitler appears to have been more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic

      • Harcourt is right that “the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition” but in the section about the possession of the guns of this same law Jews were not mentioned!
        What I am questioning is what is written by Joel: “He actually loosened gun laws for Germans”.
        Joel would have to write that he actually loosened gun laws only for trustworthy Germans (e.g. Nazi party members). Who were those trustworthy Germans was at the discretion of the authorities.

        p.s.: If actually in the Weimar Republic the laws were more restrictives and based on trustworthiness the evaluation of which belonged to the police I wonder how this may have had an impact on the ascent of Hitler (e.g. Hitler’s men had weapons contrary to his opponents as Leftists). So even if Weimar Republic had more restrictives laws the point remains and perhaps is strengthened.

        • Actually, Andom – Hitler maintained only a certain amount of control over handguns, but let everything else go completely unregulated. It wasn’t merely trustworthy Germans, but for Germans in general. You have to remember, Hitler didn’t consider the Jews Germans.

          Hitler started with speeches first, not guns.

  3. I really get tired of everyone taking something they find on the blogs as true if it agrees with them and false if it is different from their beliefs. Just because something is posted by someone who probably has an agenda doesn’t make it true. We all tend to be true only to our bias.

    • which law? The 1938 law, or the 1928 law?

      If you’re talking about the ambiguous (in our eyes) “trustworthy” requirement, that was passed in the 1928 law, which pre-dated the Nazi regime, and was in fact Weimar Republic legislation.

      • as noted above, the “trustworthy” requirement of the Weimar legislation on which the police (closely linked to the Nazis) had to judge with huge discretion maybe it was a factor that allowed the Nazis to do what they wanted while their opponents were restrained. Some might say that it were the most restrictive laws of the Weimanr Republic to allow Hitler to seize power. So yes: if you want to conquer a nation a restrictive law on arms is required.

        • just a clarification to avoid being misunderstood. I do not know U.S. laws on weapons. If there are some laws that allow weapons to anyone, in any quantity, of any kind, or without medical supervision, of course, they need to be reviewed.

          • well, I was politely explaining to my interlocutor that I was not doing these remarks because somehow interested in the current strict policy of the United States. That’s all.

        • No, Andom, you are wrong again. I don’t think you understand the history of Weimar and what the gun laws were originally for, nor how Hitler came to power – through democratic elections.

          “Some might say” is a way to get around evidence and pose stupid theories, Domy Domy.

        • One other thing… because this just bugs me. Hitler did not just seize power – power was given to him because the was elected. Once elected, he didn’t overturn all that many laws, just focused the German people on Jews and others, preparing them for war. You may like to wish away the German people’s complicity in giving Hitler power, but that is the true travesty of history. He had higher approval ratings among Germans than we might care to acknowledge… And let’s not mention the huge numbers of German Christians flocking to crown Hitler as the new messiah, the one to same Christian Germany. Nor the American attraction to the Nazi Party… including Hitler Youth replacing Boy Scouts, huge parades of American Nazis, and of course, the huge demonstration of the American Nazis at Madison Square Garden, among other insistences…

          Hitler didn’t seize power – the German people gave it to him. Remember, it wasn’t the German military that participated in the Kristallnacht, but German civilians.

          You and the rest of the group need to learn history.

          • ” power was given to him because the was elected”…
            As all we know Hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg even if he had not the majority in parliament or in the country. So when he came to power the majority of Germans were not with him. Taken the power could you guess what legislation he used to deprive of weapons Communists, Trade Unions members and every enemies he wanted when police was filled with his men? could you guess what legislation he used to order the return of weapons to anyone not entitled ?
            Yes, the ristrective Weimar Republic legislation (call it if you want heterogenesis of ends!). Once he eliminated these opponents who could not defend themselves he eventually had the 99% approval of the 1936 referendum. But if you eliminate all possible opponents this is called seizure of power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machtergreifung).

  4. Mr Joel Landon Watts , as I think there are dozens of academic scholars who have devoted their lives to the study of the Bill of Rights, could you quote one sayng that the origin of the Second Amendment was as Mr Hartmann writes?

  5. Joel, you are so right here if not elsewhere sometimes:
    “Hitler didn’t seize power – the German people gave it to him. Remember, it wasn’t the German military that participated in the Kristallnacht, but German civilians.
    You and the rest of the group need to learn history.”

    This has been the history of virtually every modern tyrant who has seized power in a democratic leaning government. At some time in the future this history is very likely to repeat itself here as we are always ready to ignore history in order to achieve a near term situation that we see as a benefit. The creators of the US constitution certainly had human flaws but they did know history and did a decent job of setting up a government that was largely designed to combat history repeating itself. The real danger is not guns or gun laws but rather the use of some crisis (natural or created) by a potential tyrant to take over excess power with the blessing of the people. If we don’t understand history we are bound to stand by while it is repeated and those that seem to think that such a thing is impossible here or don’t really care will undoubtedly stand by and do little if history is repeating itself. Guns and gun laws are a very minor problem if the will of the people is controlled through methods such as occurred in Germany, Italy, England and Spain at various times. The same human faults control whether a nation is striving to move from tyranny to a democracy of sorts or having a democracy of sorts and moving to tyranny because of a crisis. Eventually tyranny overtakes them when they let their guard down.

    • Oddly enough, Skid, a current thought at the time was that history was over. With the founding of the U.S., some believed that no future human would be made.

    • I think for them, history was finished because people were finally in charge… and that would eventually bring about a sort of utopian system of government were republicans were the order of the day.

  6. Hitler was wrong to only disarm non-German citizens. He hated Germans so much and did not care about the possibility of them being injured or killed.

    I look at Chicago and Washington as the model for Gun Control in America. The least violent cities in our not-so-great country.

    Our founding fathers were stupid and had no idea what they were thinking when they wrote the Constitution. I wish people would stop pointing to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights anytime there’s a debate about new legislation that would help our country become a Utopian society.

Leave a Reply, Please!