Knife Control! Yep, Next After Gun Control!

[Sam]

Please cite the article because I don't even know what the Conservative Treehouse is.

It's the "CNN Photoshopped Umpqua Shooter" deal.

[rogue06]

Dude, you cited a bogus article that came from the Conservative Treehouse a few days ago. Don't go judging. I cited the relevant scholars and the argument made. You want to take issue with something, take issue with the content.

And you've yet to show where the legitimate debate among historians is regarding whether an armed German populace could or would have had an effect on the Nazis rise to power. That the Nazis were at one point still politically vulnerable was never disputed because it wasn't even the claim being made.

Please cite the article because I don't even know what the Conservative Treehouse is.

[Sam]

I explicitly mentioned the early years of Nazi rule well before they consolidated their power. Back when their grip on power was still tenacious at best. That is the period that historians and legal scholars such as Robert J. Cottrol, L. Hunt Tooley, Steven B. Bowman, Jeremy A. Rabkin and James B. Jacobs propose that the Nazis were still extremely vulnerable. As I said, personally I have my doubts that they would have had much effect so you can save your histrionics for someone else. And Mother Jones? Really?

Dude, you cited a bogus article that came from the Conservative Treehouse a few days ago. Don't go judging. I cited the relevant scholars and the argument made. You want to take issue with something, take issue with the content.

And you've yet to show where the legitimate debate among historians is regarding whether an armed German populace could or would have had an effect on the Nazis rise to power. That the Nazis were at one point still politically vulnerable was never disputed because it wasn't even the claim being made.

[lilpixieofterror]

I explicitly mentioned the early years of Nazi rule well before they consolidated their power. Back when their grip on power was still tenacious at best. That is the period that historians and legal scholars such as Robert J. Cottrol, L. Hunt Tooley, Steven B. Bowman, Jeremy A. Rabkin and James B. Jacobs propose that the Nazis were still extremely vulnerable. As I said, personally I have my doubts that they would have had much effect so you can save your histrionics for someone else. And Mother Jones? Really?

Anybody, who quotes Mother Jones, as a serious source of information, should be laughed at and not taken seriously in the least (especially when they try to berate people for using ultra conservative sources of information).

[rogue06]

Who said that bad science was OK? I sure didn't — what I pointed out is that you seem to be doing about the same thing as some other folk on a different forum ... the sort of thing you've chastised 'em right good before.




What gun-grabbing policies? Which historians? Given that the Nazi's largely loosened gun regulations before ramping up the "final solution", there isn't a real argument for historians to legitimately argue over. Did the Nazi's have "gun-grabbing" policies? No. Did they loosen gun regulations while restricting those policies to "reliable" persons? Yes. Could a very small minority of the population have stopped the Nazi army, which very quickly rolled over large portions of Europe, the USSR, northern Africa, etc. despite heavily militarized resistance? Not a chance.

And yet you've got a large number of Conservative media outlets, lobby groups, and politicians who have argued exactly that, long after the starting "research" has been concluded to be poor at best.

Source: Was Hitler Really a Fan of Gun Control? Gavin Aronsen. Mother Jones. 2013.01.11

So did Hitler and the Nazis really take away Germans' guns, making the Holocaust unavoidable? This argument is superficially true at best, as University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explained in a 2004 paper (PDF) on Nazi Germany's impact on the American culture wars. As World War I drew to a close, the new Weimar Republic government banned nearly all private gun ownership to comply with the Treaty of Versailles and mandated that all guns and ammunition "be surrendered immediately." The law was loosened in 1928, and gun permits were granted to citizens "of undoubted reliability" (in the law's words) but not "persons who are itinerant like Gypsies." In 1938, under Nazi rule, gun laws became significantly more relaxed. Rifle and shotgun possession were deregulated, and gun access for hunters, Nazi Party members, and government officials was expanded. The legal age to own a gun was lowered. Jews, however, were prohibited from owning firearms and other dangerous weapons.


"But guns didn't play a particularly important part in any event," says Robert Spitzer, who chairs SUNY-Cortland's political science department and has extensively researched gun control politics. Gun ownership in Germany after World War I, even among Nazi Party members, was never widespread enough for a serious civilian resistance to the Nazis to have been anything more than a Tarantino revenge fantasy. If Jews had been better armed, Spitzer says, it would only have hastened their demise. Gun policy "wasn't the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights, and they were a minority group."

© Copyright Original Source

So here you're arguing that the Nazi's imposed "gun-grabbing policies," repeating a false claim that's been debunked for some time yet continues to be perpetuated through media, politicians, even presidential candidates. That's exactly what you were decrying on the "other side" of the issue.

I explicitly mentioned the early years of Nazi rule well before they consolidated their power. Back when their grip on power was still tenacious at best. That is the period that historians and legal scholars such as Robert J. Cottrol, L. Hunt Tooley, Steven B. Bowman, Jeremy A. Rabkin and James B. Jacobs propose that the Nazis were still extremely vulnerable. As I said, personally I have my doubts that they would have had much effect so you can save your histrionics for someone else. And Mother Jones? Really?

[Sam]

The idea, which is debated among legitimate historians, is that armed resistance early on among those who were not fans of the Nazis and long before they consolidated their power and control, might have been able to overthrow them. Personally, I have my doubts in that the Nazis were still pretty popular in the early years whereas the groups they didn't like were not and thus would not have likely had much support. But you really should understand what the actual argument is before you hand wave a straw man version of it.

First and foremost, you yourself argued that it was the Nazis' "gun-grabbing" policies that was debated among historians, not the counterfactual question "If the German populace was more heavily armed during the Nazi rise to power, could the resistance forces have stopped them?"

Apart from that, where is this idea debated among legitimate historians? The Nazis' rise to power was largely democratic, with the party repeatedly winning a majority of seats. Violence continued throughout the Nazis' parliamentary gains and there was no real 'hidden majority' of citizens — armed or otherwise — who were united in opposition to Nazi control. The communists, in fact, were directing most of their opposition at the more moderate groups, possibly thinking that they would benefit from a more bifurcated political environment.

For an armed populace to have been able to stop the Nazi rise to power, you'd first have to have a largely unpopular Nazi party that was ascending to power through aggression. That didn't happen. The Nazis were popular, as you say, and violence was directed at far too many targets to have successfully stopped the Nazis (it just as likely would have helped them consolidate power sooner).

But remember, the claim is that Nazi gun control policies were causative in the Nazi rise to power. That's the claim being made by right-wing lobbies, media outlets, and politicians. It's not a strawman to go after that argument, rather than the more rational counterfactual you pose above.

[rogue06]

The Nazi gun thing came up this week, because Ben Carson repeated the claim that the Nazis taking away people's gun led to the Holocaust, and the very few people in the media still interested in facts went "?!? The Nazis actually loosened gun control laws and let more people have guns!

If you were members of the Nazi party or belonged to the military but if you were an ordinary citizen -- especially if you were Jewish or a member of any other undesirable group -- not so much.

Plus, given that the entire Allied military forces took years to stop the Nazi's, how exactly would a few guns more or less have been effective?"

The idea, which is debated among legitimate historians, is that armed resistance early on among those who were not fans of the Nazis and long before they consolidated their power and control, might have been able to overthrow them. Personally, I have my doubts in that the Nazis were still pretty popular in the early years whereas the groups they didn't like were not and thus would not have likely had much support. But you really should understand what the actual argument is before you hand wave a straw man version of it.

I think it's just a common delusion in America among certain groups that having a gun somehow limits the power of the government.

Throughout history more than one tyrant has feared an armed citizenry.

And thus they assume that in historical cases of governments doing bad things it must have been because the populace didn't have guns. Their minds can't seem to cope with the reality that citizens having guns has pretty much nothing to do with how badly or well the government behaves, and that the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was misguided.

"the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was misguided"

Tell me starlight, what exactly do you think the colonial American's chances of defeating the British would have been if they weren't armed?

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't think you understand, Starlight. When the police come to arrest me for not selling my cakes to gay people, my friends and I will be able to hold them off with our gun collection from our suburban homes, thus preserving our freedoms.

[lilpixieofterror]

You must be in a debate club in an asylum.

Hey, when you can't win though logic, try pretending your opponents are crazy and you don't need to show them as wrong. Considering most of us don't own a bakery and likely never will (I'm not a terrible baker, but I despite baking and never would be in a business where I would have to do it all day), his point is moot.

[klaus54]

I don't think you understand, Starlight. When the police come to arrest me for not selling my cakes to gay people, my friends and I will be able to hold them off with our gun collection from our suburban homes, thus preserving our freedoms.

You must be in a debate club in an asylum.

[klaus54]

You don't know how it pained me to purposely misuse their and leave it alone.

"Their" was fine, but I couldn't resist "Their rouge."

So sorry...

[Psychic Missile]

The Nazi gun thing came up this week, because Ben Carson repeated the claim that the Nazis taking away people's gun led to the Holocaust, and the very few people in the media still interested in facts went "?!? The Nazis actually loosened gun control laws and let more people have guns! Plus, given that the entire Allied military forces took years to stop the Nazi's, how exactly would a few guns more or less have been effective?"

I think it's just a common delusion in America among certain groups that having a gun somehow limits the power of the government. And thus they assume that in historical cases of governments doing bad things it must have been because the populace didn't have guns. Their minds can't seem to cope with the reality that citizens having guns has pretty much nothing to do with how badly or well the government behaves, and that the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was misguided.

I don't think you understand, Starlight. When the police come to arrest me for not selling my cakes to gay people, my friends and I will be able to hold them off with our gun collection from our suburban homes, thus preserving our freedoms.

[Starlight]

The Nazi gun thing came up this week, because Ben Carson repeated the claim that the Nazis taking away people's gun led to the Holocaust, and the very few people in the media still interested in facts went "?!? The Nazis actually loosened gun control laws and let more people have guns! Plus, given that the entire Allied military forces took years to stop the Nazi's, how exactly would a few guns more or less have been effective?"

I think it's just a common delusion in America among certain groups that having a gun somehow limits the power of the government. And thus they assume that in historical cases of governments doing bad things it must have been because the populace didn't have guns. Their minds can't seem to cope with the reality that citizens having guns has pretty much nothing to do with how badly or well the government behaves, and that the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was misguided.

[Sam]

Superb defense there Sam. The equivalent of but... but... but someone else might have done it on a totally unrelated topic so it's okay if the anti-Second Amendment crowd does it

Who said that bad science was OK? I sure didn't — what I pointed out is that you seem to be doing about the same thing as some other folk on a different forum ... the sort of thing you've chastised 'em right good before.

And historians legitimately argue over whether or not the Nazis might have been stopped early on if they had not succeeded in their gun grabbing policies. Personally, I doubt it. Unfortunately they and their policies were still very popular at that time in Germany.

What gun-grabbing policies? Which historians? Given that the Nazi's largely loosened gun regulations before ramping up the "final solution", there isn't a real argument for historians to legitimately argue over. Did the Nazi's have "gun-grabbing" policies? No. Did they loosen gun regulations while restricting those policies to "reliable" persons? Yes. Could a very small minority of the population have stopped the Nazi army, which very quickly rolled over large portions of Europe, the USSR, northern Africa, etc. despite heavily militarized resistance? Not a chance.

And yet you've got a large number of Conservative media outlets, lobby groups, and politicians who have argued exactly that, long after the starting "research" has been concluded to be poor at best.

Source: Was Hitler Really a Fan of Gun Control? Gavin Aronsen. Mother Jones. 2013.01.11

So did Hitler and the Nazis really take away Germans' guns, making the Holocaust unavoidable? This argument is superficially true at best, as University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explained in a 2004 paper (PDF) on Nazi Germany's impact on the American culture wars. As World War I drew to a close, the new Weimar Republic government banned nearly all private gun ownership to comply with the Treaty of Versailles and mandated that all guns and ammunition "be surrendered immediately." The law was loosened in 1928, and gun permits were granted to citizens "of undoubted reliability" (in the law's words) but not "persons who are itinerant like Gypsies." In 1938, under Nazi rule, gun laws became significantly more relaxed. Rifle and shotgun possession were deregulated, and gun access for hunters, Nazi Party members, and government officials was expanded. The legal age to own a gun was lowered. Jews, however, were prohibited from owning firearms and other dangerous weapons.


"But guns didn't play a particularly important part in any event," says Robert Spitzer, who chairs SUNY-Cortland's political science department and has extensively researched gun control politics. Gun ownership in Germany after World War I, even among Nazi Party members, was never widespread enough for a serious civilian resistance to the Nazis to have been anything more than a Tarantino revenge fantasy. If Jews had been better armed, Spitzer says, it would only have hastened their demise. Gun policy "wasn't the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights, and they were a minority group."

© Copyright Original Source

So here you're arguing that the Nazi's imposed "gun-grabbing policies," repeating a false claim that's been debunked for some time yet continues to be perpetuated through media, politicians, even presidential candidates. That's exactly what you were decrying on the "other side" of the issue.

[rogue06]

You don't know how it pained me to purposely misuse their and leave it alone.

Yeah, yeah. Blood on the keyboard and all that.