Interesting article about gun control, NAZI's, & cultural factors in the RKBA debate

[sb_pete]

Came across an interesting article on the RKBA debate.

Here is the article (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/harcourt/harcourt_fordham.pdf). It is in PDF format. Fair warning: it is a 27 page article in rather dense language. The author is Bernard Harcourt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Harcourt). He is a Law and Criminology professor at University of Chicago who has written in opposition to profiling and the "broken windows" theory of policing. His writings have appeared at the Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1177998929.shtml). He is a bit of an uber-intellectual and his writing is rather dense. Very interesting if you can bear with it though.

The article basically debunks the pro-RKBA claims of Nazi gun control. It is NOT a pro-gun control article. In fact, the author does not really take one side or the other in the US RKBA debate. What he is looking at is the use of the argument that the Nazi's were gun grabbers. Let me be clear that I am no fan of National Socialism, but, IMHO, he pretty convincingly debunks the idea that the Nazi's were gun grabbers. Kind of a shame as that was an attractive argument to me before.

The really interesting stuff is from the bottom of page 17 till the end after the heading Reading the Nazi Gun Laws.
Pages 1-7 outline the use of the Nazi argument in the US RKBA debate.
Pages 7-16 are much more social scientist / culture wars focused.


What do you guys think?
Anyone take objection to or want to refute anything he wrote?

-Pete

[yellowfin]

He basically states that anti RKBA laws were taken advantage of, but not directly instituted by the Nazis. This actually can be used to help us pursue a more positive but still forceful line of action against D's and their supporters who may turn their ears off normally when we talk to them and pin all the potential evil of the ages on them. That's definitely a problem: who listens to you when you paint them as the villain? (Of course you might point out that I myself am in the habit of painting a whole boatload of the powers that be in this state and the few others as evil incarnate, but this is with the understanding that it doesn't matter to them what I say at that point anyway. There are no friends to be had with those that are so hardcore anti 2A that they'd rather die, or cause you to as they often do, than change.) "Ok, YOU might not be as bad at the Nazis, YOU might not be evil, but what guarantee can you make that the folks who come after you won't be?" Answer is, of course, none.

It doesn't matter who passes anti gun laws or why they say they do--their stated intentions mean jack squat, and nothing is to say they're telling the truth in the first place. The results are the same and it's never good.

[Canute]

He basically states that anti RKBA laws were taken advantage of, but not directly instituted by the Nazis. This actually can be used to help us pursue a more positive but still forceful line of action against D's and their supporters who may turn their ears off normally when we talk to them. "Ok, YOU might not be as bad at the Nazis, YOU might not be evil, but what guarantee can you make that the folks who come after you won't be?" Answer is, of course, none.

I read not too long ago that the original prohibitions against firearms ownership by Jews and Gypsies in Germany were passed in the late '20s, before the Nazis took power.
So, yes, that's a good point.

[7x57]

He basically states that anti RKBA laws were taken advantage of, but not directly instituted by the Nazis. This actually can be used to help us pursue a more positive but still forceful line of action against D's and their supporters who may turn their ears off normally when we talk to them. "Ok, YOU might not be as bad at the Nazis, YOU might not be evil, but what guarantee can you make that the folks who come after you won't be?" Answer is, of course, none.

Hmm. The problem, or benefit of that is that their strategy is the opposite of the Founders. They assumed that bad people would sooner or later have power, and followed the game-theoretic strategy of minimizing the maximum loss. The left, by contrast, essentially attempts to maximize the maximum gain, and insulates itself from thinking about the consequences of that by believing in a magical kind of social Darwinism. Perhaps they don't think strictly in terms of creating a new synthesis that not only replaces the thesis but is guaranteed to be an advancement on it, but they behave as though they did. This is a blind faith that contradicts everything we know about human history.

Oddly enough, the same people usually claim to be against "blind faith." Of all faiths, social Darwinism is one of the blindest. If the slaughter and disaster that was the 20th century was not convincing, nothing else will be either.

7x57

[CCWFacts]

Thanks for the ref on that article. Good stuff. Our opponents fester in their own dishonesty. We need to be the opposite, and really "fact check" our rhetoric.

That famous Hitler quote about gun control is a well-known hoax or at least it's not documented in any reliable way. All of our claims should be able to stand up to scrutiny and fact-checking.

[Creeping Incrementalism]

I didn't look at the article, but if the author is saying the Weimar Republic instituted gun control in Germany--that fact is well known amongst anyone who has done research into RKBA. And the NSDAP was still definitely anti-RKBA.

[rayra]

So what is this socialist nazi-apologist's explanation for the wholesale plagiarism of the NAZI gun control laws into our own 1968 GCA, done by Democrats?

http://www.jpfo.net/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm

[rayra]

...and how then to explain / dismiss the Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938? - which itself replaced / superceded the Wiemar act of '28

Am I seriously going to have to sit here and read CA Democrat gun owners slobber all over another Democrat's supposed debunking of who the Demokrat-Socialist authoritarian Left really is?

NSDAP.
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
National Socialist German Workers' Party.
NAZIs.

There is no explaining it away. There is no blaming it on the Wiemar Republic instead.

And as Obama Energy Sct Designate Carol Browner just discovered, you can't be an International Socialist for years and try to erase the webpage on the eve of your nomination and make it all go away. -and neither can Bernard Harcourt, Professor Univ of Chicago, donator of $2300 to the Obama Campaign, try to pretend that his idological forebears of the NSDAP did not severely restrict gun ownership for most germans an dban it utterly for those they considered 'undesireable'.

[rayra]

LMAO. Harcourt's already been inserted into the Wiki reference. How Orwellian.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Ac t

[edit] The 1938 German Weapons Act
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and Nazi party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing of firearms and ammunition.[6]
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[7]


And note all those points of registration, permitting and control. Sounds like Chicago and every other Democrat-dominated domain, doesn't it. And the same oppressive garbage is now in HR45.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

...and how then to explain / dismiss the Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938? - which itself replaced / superceded the Wiemar act of '28 ....



My Main Issue with these types of discussions is that the rule of law has been essentially abandoned prior to the passage of these so called "laws". In my opinion, by 1938 there essentially are no longer laws. The institutions are no longer governed that way. so rubber stamping a dictators edicts - its just not apples to apples.

[rayra]

THe more I look at this the more apparent it seems that Harcourt's entire work is nothing but an attempt to position, to 'normalize', to recontextualize the Wiemar and NAZI institution of comprehensive registration and permitting - "common sense gun laws" - as a liberalization, an improvement over Germany's prior total ban. It is, in only that very narrow sense. And wholly ignores the issue that this is the US of f'n A and we have the 2nd Amendment. Such schemes are thus NOT any sort of liberalization.


To place them both in the proper relationship:


USA / 2nd Amend
|
(reduction in freedom)
|
V
National Registration and Permitting
^
|
(increase in freedom - if you're 'trusted' or not a Jew)
|
Post WW1 Germany


Utterly Orwellian. Slavery=Freedom.

And I'll say it's an utter lie to pretend Harcourt isn't utterly involved in our national RKBA struggle, if he's shoveling this ****.

[rayra]

My Main Issue with these types of discussions is that the rule of law has been essentially abandoned prior to the passage of these so called "laws". In my opinion, by 1938 there essentially are no longer laws. The institutions are no longer governed that way. so rubber stamping a dictators edicts - its just not apples to apples.

We're not talking about apples though. We're talking about the group in power that has a monopoly on 'legal' lethal force to enforce compliance with their edicts. This is far from a mere mental exercise where degenerate academicians can create pretty constructs that seek to negate our Rights. That seek to sway the presumptive opinion of folks like the OP (who claims to have been reversed by this tripe). That seek to obfuscate or re-cast history in a way that justifies their treasons to our Constitution. That seek to bind us with words and thus forestall our outraged vengeance for their authoritarian scheming.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

We're not talking about apples though. We're talking about the group in power that has a monopoly on 'legal' lethal force to enforce compliance with their edicts. This is far from a mere mental exercise where degenerate academicians can create pretty constructs that seek to negate our Rights. That seek to sway the presumptive opinion of folks like the OP (who claims to have been reversed by this tripe). That seek to obfuscate or re-cast history in a way that justifies their treasons to our Constitution. That seek to bind us with words and thus forestall our outraged vengeance for their authoritarian scheming.

Im with you brother- but in a nation that is not governed by the rule of law- its immaterial what "laws" they "pass" or don't. It has no bearing on the State's behavior. If they were taking guns or not- it wasn't predicated on these phony laws. Eventually they just quit even pretending to meet or pass "laws". even the charade had become obsolete.

in its simplest form-My point is that "nazi" gun laws aren't laws.

In that environment , if the nazi's had passed law giving everyone the right to keep and bear arms, it would not have protected you , as the "law" wasn't relevant.

***edit this is the only vote that mattered and the only "law" in place , the enabling act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933)

[sb_pete]

THe more I look at this the more apparent it seems that Harcourt's entire work is nothing but an attempt to position, to 'normalize', to recontextualize the Wiemar and NAZI institution of comprehensive registration and permitting - "common sense gun laws" - as a liberalization, an improvement over Germany's prior total ban. It is, in only that very narrow sense. And wholly ignores the issue that this is the US of f'n A and we have the 2nd Amendment. Such schemes are thus NOT any sort of liberalization.

Not seeing where you're going here. The whole point of the article, as I read it, was that the association of Nazi's with gun banning is bunk. I sure as hell am not going to fall in with the gun grabbers, but like CCWFacts says, "All of our claims should be able to stand up to scrutiny and fact-checking." I had certainly used the argument that the Nazi's came to power and banned guns in order to enact their despicable regime. This article shows that argument to be without basis. The 1928 Weimar law liberalized the 1919 total firearms ban and put in place a registration scheme. The (Nazi) 1938 German Weapons Act, while taking away Jewish firearms rights totally, deregulated long arm sales and liberalized other firearms laws. The point is that the common claim that the Nazi's banned private firearms ownership is not true.

I don't see how this helps the anti's. It does serve as a fact check on a common pro-RKBA claim though.

I do see the similarities you point out between that law and the 1968 GCA in the establishment of FFL's, bound books etc. It is a disturbing resemblance, but I would like to see some evidence that it was willfully looked towards as a model by 1968 anti's. It seems a logical step for them and not one that would need to be copied from any other model. I am not saying it is not true. In fact, if the 1968 GCA could be legitimately shown to be modeled after the 1938 German Weapons Act, that would be nice ammo.

-Pete

[7x57]

It's also worth noting that in the last extremity Jews did fire back, and did amazingly well for some very poorly armed people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

The 2A is about never being that poorly armed, however.

7x57

[aileron]

The 1928 Weimar law liberalized the 1919 total firearms ban and put in place a registration scheme. The (Nazi) 1938 German Weapons Act, while taking away Jewish firearms rights totally, deregulated long arm sales and liberalized other firearms laws. The point is that the common claim that the Nazi's banned private firearms ownership is not true.



Talk to German people that were there during that time that are still alive or talk to their kids that recalled dad telling them how they use to hide firearms behind the bricks in the well and bury other firearms around their property (true story) because the Nazi's would come by and look for firearms. Dad telling them to appreciate the sky, because you are under a free sky and when you are not free you will not look at the sky the same.

Or are we to forget that families were turned in by their own Nazi Youth kids and then killed by their own government. Or is all that a lie too and we can believe that was only because the people were trusted and with guns no less.

[CCWFacts]

The reason why I like this article is because we don't ever want to be Michael Moore.

This writer makes the point: of course Jews were disarmed. They were stripped of all their rights or permission to do anything normal. That doesn't really indicate whether the Nazis were pro- or anti-gun-ownership.

I assume the Nazis wanted to register everything and have permits for everything and of course all permits would be discretionary and linked to how Nazi the person is.

[sb_pete]

Talk to German people that were there during that time that are still alive or talk to their kids that recalled dad telling them how they use to hide firearms behind the bricks in the well and bury other firearms around their property (true story) because the Nazi's would come by and look for firearms. Dad telling them to appreciate the sky, because you are under a free sky and when you are not free you will not look at the sky the same.

So is the article wrong or lying then? Where does this anecdote come from?

Or are we to forget that families were turned in by their own Nazi Youth kids and then killed by their own government. Or is all that a lie too and we can believe that was only because the people were trusted and with guns no less.

I don't think the article is in any way defending or excusing Nazism. Nor am I. The Nazi regime was a despicable totalitarian one. The question is whether or not the claims that they made disarmament of the people official policy are true? While it is clear this was true for Jews and Gypsies, this article seems to indicate that this was not true for the rest of the population. If so, that negates a common argument given by pro-RKBA folks like us to the gun grabbers. That matters.

-Pete

[rayra]

Im with you brother- but in a nation that is not governed by the rule of law- its immaterial what "laws" they "pass" or don't. It has no bearing on the State's behavior. If they were taking guns or not- it wasn't predicated on these phony laws. Eventually they just quit even pretending to meet or pass "laws". even the charade had become obsolete.

in its simplest form-My point is that "nazi" gun laws aren't laws.

In that environment , if the nazi's had passed law giving everyone the right to keep and bear arms, it would not have protected you , as the "law" wasn't relevant.

***edit this is the only vote that mattered and the only "law" in place , the enabling act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933)

I grasp your point and agree with it. That once that level of authoritarianism is reached - NAZI germany, or the all-encompassing (il)LIberalism we are on the cusp of today - the actual text of the law doesn't matter. All that matter is who wields it and who they wield it against. And we're about to get the full brunt of it upside our heads. From abbrogation of our 2nd Amend rights to the massive fraud of Anthropomorphic Global Warming. Every sector of our government will now be surmounted by complete socialists.

- An Attorney General Designate that supported teh deportation of a child back to Cuba. Who aided the pardon of a huge white collar criminal.
- An Energy Secretary designate who was a LEADER of the International Socialist group and an Eco-marxist at the EPA will not control our Energy infrastructure.
- A Commerce secretary designate that was a crook, a womanizer, a supporter of Illegal Aliens.
- A Secretary of Education right out of the Chicago cesspools, the third worst / largest district getting nothing for their money.
- Appointing an utter novice to CIA, demonstrating the utter disregard of the international threat
- A tax cheat as Treasury secretary.
- A woman that takes foreign bribes as SecState
- A man who stabbed a banquet table with a steakknife while chanting ‘Dead, Dead, Dead’ about his own party enemies, and who also reaped millions from the housing scam as his Chief of Staff. And who supports a resumption of the Draft

And all operating under a man that has made clear his intent to gut our military strength, cancel our advanced weapons, is an advocate of unilateral disarmament of our nuclear capability, has called for a civilian force the equal of our military, and who has over and over (and STILL) makes statement and platform pronouncements against our 2nd Amendment rights and utterly at odds with the oath of office he's going to take in five days.

[rayra]

Not seeing where you're going here. The whole point of the article, as I read it, was that the association of Nazi's with gun banning is bunk. I sure as hell am not going to fall in with the gun grabbers, but like CCWFacts says, "All of our claims should be able to stand up to scrutiny and fact-checking." I had certainly used the argument that the Nazi's came to power and banned guns in order to enact their despicable regime. This article shows that argument to be without basis. The 1928 Weimar law liberalized the 1919 total firearms ban and put in place a registration scheme. The (Nazi) 1938 German Weapons Act, while taking away Jewish firearms rights totally, deregulated long arm sales and liberalized other firearms laws. The point is that the common claim that the Nazi's banned private firearms ownership is not true.

I don't see how this helps the anti's. It does serve as a fact check on a common pro-RKBA claim though.

I do see the similarities you point out between that law and the 1968 GCA in the establishment of FFL's, bound books etc. It is a disturbing resemblance, but I would like to see some evidence that it was willfully looked towards as a model by 1968 anti's. It seems a logical step for them and not one that would need to be copied from any other model. I am not saying it is not true. In fact, if the 1968 GCA could be legitimately shown to be modeled after the 1938 German Weapons Act, that would be nice ammo.

-Pete


Your obtuseness is breathtaking, even as you recapitulate my points for me in your own writing. You exhibit an extreme cognitive dissonance when you can simultaneously type what I marked in bold type.
Further, you indulge this navel-gazing remonstration and deconstructionism of OUR side of the argument, while giving full faith and credence to the sleight of hand practiced by The Enemy.
Frankly, I now completely doubt you are what you claim to be.
And at the very least you utterly failed to read anything I linked in response to your post as evidenced by your remark re the '68 GCA.
Given all that I don't see much point in discussing it with you further. Your statements ring of incapacity to hold this discussion at best and dishonesty at worst. And either way, I'm not interested in expending the effort for you.
You asked for discussion and refutation. I provided it in spades. You've come back with a non-response that utterly fails (or refuses) to acknowledge a single point that contradicted your beliefs. And done so by making outrageous self-contradictory statements.
Therefore there's no point in continuing the discussion with you.

[rayra]

The reason why I like this article is because we don't ever want to be Michael Moore.

This writer makes the point: of course Jews were disarmed. They were stripped of all their rights or permission to do anything normal. That doesn't really indicate whether the Nazis were pro- or anti-gun-ownership.

I assume the Nazis wanted to register everything and have permits for everything and of course all permits would be discretionary and linked to how Nazi the person is.

This is exactly what I refer to as 'academic navel gazing' and what has otherwise been referred to as 'the perfect being the enemy of the good enough'. And it is also a standard of proof of pedants and folks who wind up paralyzed into inaction because everything is not 'just so'.

And furthermore, I'm utterly disgusted that there are TWO posters spouting the almost identical line of argument that 'just because Jews lost their gun rights doesn't mean the Nazi's practiced gun control'
I cannot even express my level of outraged disgust at this line of argument, without drawing a permanent ban. What sort of gross blind spot / sickness is it that EXCUSES NAZI GUN CONTROL because it 'only' impacted Jews?

[rayra]

Upon further reflection I'm even more certain that the OP is deliberately running a Deconstructionist scam, to insert this meme / undermine the RKBA position by attempting to knock out this sideline position from the aspect I've already outlined. Excusing NAZI gun control, as part of an attempt to both undercut the RKBA arguments against socialist gun-control schemes AND to excuse the NAZIs.

There's a school of thought that the political spectrum is actually not linear, but circular. That at what we usually think of as one 'end' - authoritarian socialists - and the other 'end' - far-right totalitarian fascism - they actually come together in a merging of interests.
And this combination of attempt to recontextualize national gun registration and permitting as a liberalization, a freedom, alongside attempts to absolve NAZIs for disarming (and subsequently butchering) their 'undesireables' absolutely reeks of it.

[N6ATF]

If you believe the OP is undermining the RKBA position, have you reported the thread for removal?

[aileron]

So is the article wrong or lying then? Where does this anecdote come from?






It comes from a co-workers father. Who lived in Germany during Nazi occupation. Unfortunately, that man died last year so I cannot get further data on the story. :( But I was told the story years ago, when Clinton was still in office.

Even my grandfather (also passed away) was conscripted by the Russians, than captured by the Nazi's had oodles of stories that were shocking.

Thats why I suggest you find some people that lived through that time, and ask. It will be good to hear true life stories instead of a sterile academic interpretation of history.

[rayra]

I'm already aware of Alinsky, Marx and particularly a marxist named Gramsci. Our Left in America today uses all of their methods to lie openly about history and to divide this nation into ever smaller subgroups, turning each against the others. It's been tehir effort and goal for more than 50 years, as lart of their 'long march' to sow chaos. Kruschev promised to 'bury' us and the Useful Idiots that fell sway to marxist professors from the 30s thru the 50s produced the nightmares that were / are half the Classes of '68-'72. The socialist scumbags that now sit atop our univeristy systems, our media congloms and seeded throughout our government bureaucracies. And running around these forums as well.

[CCWFacts]

I cannot even express my level of outraged disgust at this line of argument, without drawing a permanent ban. What sort of gross blind spot / sickness is it that EXCUSES NAZI GUN CONTROL because it 'only' impacted Jews?

You're not following what we're saying (or at least what I'm saying). I'm not excusing Nazi gun control or Nazi anything.

Here's the point of that article and why we're discussing it:

Certain RKBA advocates (including JFPO and non-JPFO) use the line of argument, "Nazis supported gun control and gun control allowed them to perpetrate their genocide. Therefore, if you support gun control, you agree with the Nazis and your actions could also lead to similar horrible crimes here. Conversely, we are advocating RKBA to prevent genocide from happening."

This article is questioning the premise of that rhetoric. It's not excusing Nazi gun laws or anything else, it's just saying, "wait a minute, maybe that rhetoric doesn't fully stand up to historical facts".

What do I think about this? Well, Iraq had a dictatorship and a whole lot of Iraqis were well-armed at the time. Meanwhile, little Estonia kicked out the Soviets by singing at them (yes, the USSR was "terminally ill" at that point in time, which made that possible). So it's not crystal-clear that a well-armed population always defeats dictatorships (maybe the Iraqis didn't want to), or that an unarmed population can never defeat them. Surely the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto would have done even better if they had all had good weapons stockpiled ahead of time, so in some cases, yes, it's relevant, but also think of some of the concentration camp revolts, where they defeated their captors without any weapons at all.

I find that article quite persuasive and I don't use "the Nazis liked gun control, therefore I'm an NRA member" type arguments.

Let's analyze the Nazi situation from a different perspective. Not only did the Nazis ban Jews from owning guns, they also passed laws removing Jews' bank accounts and requiring them to get a discretionary (but impossible to get) visa to leave the country. In fact, if Jews could have had some financial resources and gotten exit visas, millions of them would have done it. So I could also make a very solid case that "bank account control and visa control killed 6 million Jews. Bank account and visa control lead to genocide!" And that would probably be with even better historical basis than the arguments about gun control => genocide. So, I don't know, the Nazis had to put in place a whole suite of draconian laws to control the Jews and make their crime possible. It's a bit of a mistake to single out one of them and say, "this one law is what made the whole thing possible."

I personally would prefer to use some other rhetoric than references to Nazi crimes.

[vladbutsky]

This article shows that even if you "relax" gun control it is still a "control" and that you don't have to ban all civilian weapons - you just need to ban them from these who you disagree with.
Just because Hitler "relaxed" more draconian gun laws does not make him "pro-gun". He kept the most important portion of the gun control intact so when he needed to disarm his enemies, he did it.
Just because some states have same level of gun control as Hitler did and yet didn't generate genocide or fascism does not mean that gun control is irrelevant to that. Gun control is not the only required ingredient for tyranny. There are other important factors that may not be met yet in all of these states but this does not mean that gun control is ok. Undoubtly gun control helps a lot to establish tyranny and just for that it should be avoided.
Overall the article is educational and helps to keep facts in check, but you should draw your own conclusions from it and not rely on author for that.

[nick]

To expand on that, he was aided in his efforts by the morons who passed the gun control laws before him. Kind of like our elected morons have been trying to do for a while now.