Attempts to draw parallels between our political debates and Nazi Germany are, as isoften lamented, a dime a dozen in contemporary discourse. Rarely, however, do they run to more than 200 pages, plus bibliography.
That distinction lies with a new book just published by the Independent Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Oakland: Stephen Halbrook’s Gun Control in the Third Reich. Oh no, you think. Oh yes, say the book’s marketers, who are not shy at all about framing the Nazi’s disarming of Jews and other political enemies as a giant, .950 caliber warning shot amid efforts in Washington and some states to pass new regulations on firearms. From the dust-jacket blurbs for the book:
“It provides a timely reminder that self-defense and the right to bear arms are fundamental human rights.” — Robert Cottrol, George Washington University law professor
“Halbrook’s important research should inform our contemporary debate on gun control.” — Steven Bowman,University of Cincinnati professor of Judaic Studies
“Everyone, including advocates of gun controls, should find this pioneering and thought-provoking book essential reading.” — James Jacobs, New York University law professor
The reviewers are associated with top ranked institutions, but are you saying that Nazi Germany was a paragon of gun rights?
ReplyDeleteThe reviewers are well known apologists for gun rights and part of the gun rights cottage industry which engages in horrible scholarship, which includes practises such as references to own works (e.g, Halbrook cites his own work).
ReplyDeleteAre you really an academic? You seem to lack knowledge of proper academic practise,
And, yes, the 1938 German Weapons Act did roll back gun laws in a way which would be akin to US gun laws (do the research yourself if you are truly an academic), Jews were not able to own guns because they were not considered German citizens under German law..
BTW, Hans Scholl had a pistol and 150 rounds of ammunition when he was arrested: discuss.
DeleteNothing like being shot down by your own side:
Deletewww.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
Bullshit with footnotes and praise is still bullshit--you just need to have a brain to see it.
But, I seriously doubt that you actually are qualified to make any statements about academic procedure since you seem to be ignorant of how that works,Greg,
Are you really an academic--or just a wannabe?
Laci, yes or no: Were Jews allowed to own guns in Nazi Germany?
DeleteLaci, thanks for linking to that Guncite article again. The regular commenters need to be reminded of that.
DeleteStill waiting for Laci's answer.
DeleteI wondered how long it would take Laci to puke on the rug.
ReplyDeleteSo a gentile pacificst could get but didn't know how to use a gun.... So what.
ReplyDeleteThe idea being that if Jews in 1930's Germany were allowed to have guns, that would have stopped the Holocaust? Sorry, but that's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. By the way, there were over 5000 armed Jews in the ghetto, they were all massacred. Superior forces will prevail whether, or not their opposition is armed.
ReplyDeleteThe Warsaw Ghetto uprising tied down German forces. A determined resistance to Hitler in the beginning would have brought his plans to a halt.
DeleteSo the drain to guard the ghetto stopped Hitler from invading France, Russia, and other countries? please show me that evidenc.
DeleteSteve, the gun nuts love to dwell in a fantasy world in which the magical gun would prevail against any odds. What's more laughable than the 3%ers and their bizarre ideas about fighting the evil government.
DeleteStill waiting for your evidence Greg.
Delete"Superior forces will prevail whether, or not their opposition is armed. "
ReplyDeleteI think there was a bit more involved in that "victory" than numbers. On the other side of the coin, we could look at Afghanistan. They outlasted the Soviet military, and are you truly thinking that the US military has defeated them?
The US military funded guys like Bin Laden. Gee, that was a good decision.
DeleteTrue, we funded him while they fought the Soviets. We also supported the Shah of Iran. We would likely do better not trying to be the world's policeman for a while.
DeleteYou might have a good argument with the insurgent forces receiving backing from the Soviets. So how do you explain them doing so well fighting the US now? And with Obama killing Bin Laden, there is that leadership vacuum.
Sorry, my fingers misbehaved. The comment above should read, You might have a good argument with the insurgent forces receiving backing from the US.
DeleteBut isn't it a question of degree. I mean, if the Soviets had invested more of their considerable resources they could have completely destroyed Afghanistan. Same with us. What percent of the overall US forces have been engaged there, while the Taliban has ALL theirs invested?
DeleteSuperior forces, if utilized, will always prevail.