borjastick wrote:He seems to have forgotten or avoided the fact that in the US it is the jews, precisely those who he thinks should have fought back and would not thus have been mass murdered (at least in his own mind) who are fighting for tighter gun control.
Modern American Conservatives(or what passes for Conservatives today) exist in a sort of bubble of cognitive-dissonance with regard to Jews. Even as they howl about "liberals" and rail against various social-Marxist intrusions, they heap endless praise upon and and mount a fanatical defense of all things Jewish, never once connective the dots or seeing the blinding contradictions in their position. They screech about Communism, yet woe be unto the poor soul who dares point out the Jewish origins and nature of that ideology! That just scratches the surface, but the whole phenomenon is nearly beyond comprehension and quite bizarre. The brainwashing has been complete with this crowd.
Yeah, the socalled cuckservatives.
Except for Gun Control and Communism, Jews in the US are overwhelmingly supporting positions opposed to conservative ones. Think of abortion, pornography, drug legalization, "hate speech", "affirmative action", "gay marriage", immigration, ban Christianity from the public etc. But the cuckservatives don't smell the coffee on any of those.
Curiously, even the political Left concedes that this Hitler=gun control meme is nonsense. (though their motive is obviously just an attempt to attack the pro-gun side and hardly one born of concerns for historical accuracy, etc.) http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_ta ... ut_hitler/
I'd say that the article isn't going far enough:
The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning? Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews? What about public works — Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not.
That simply isn't true the German firearms act from 1938 prohibits Jews from MAKING guns, not from owning them. In fact the act made it easier to own guns, and it was more lenient then any legislation enacted in most Western countries today. There is however a decree to confiscate handguns of Jews in connection with the "Crystal night" (and the conveniently overlooked assassinations of German officials), which however makes room for exceptions. As for "persecuted classes", even Texas doesn't allow certain people to own guns, they just won't say they're persecuted. It's only persecution, when "Nazis" do it. Of course the act had no bearing on firearms ownership outside Germany anyway, hence no bearing on Jews outside the country, which is were most of them resided then, right?
The author does also compare apples to oranges. There are legitimate reasons for police, public works, city planning etc.
Disarming the general populace is however a clear indicator for the intention of suppressing opposition. There the 2nd amendment supporters clearly have a good point. But to support this, they should better subscribe to historical accuracy.