The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism. In the German universities, where National Socialism gained its earliest footholds and which later became its strongest bastions, dueling was an accepted practice. Although the liberal-Jewish governments in Germany after the First World War attempted to ban dueling, it persisted illegally until it was again legalized by the National Socialists. Fencing, target shooting, and other martial arts were immensely popular in Germany, and the National Socialists encouraged young Germans to become proficient in these activities, believing that they were important for the development of a man's character.Source
see also:
"The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism."
ReplyDeleteYes, Nazi Germany was a wonderful place as long as you fit into the narrow definition of a "good German.
"On the other hand, the law stripped gun ownership rights from Jews as well as other “non-Aryan” minorities persecuted by Hitler and the Nazis. Of course, the Nazis not only stripped Jews of their gun rights, they stripped Jews of all of their rights, including the right to live."
Do you think the outcome of the Jews would have been different if they had more guns?
Delete"Do you think the outcome of the Jews would have been different if they had more guns?"
DeleteWhether the Jews could have prevailed over the Socialist military of Germany of the time is immaterial. The goal was to keep the "lower classes" unarmed and unable to defend themselves. Much like Jim Crow laws enacted by the Southern Democrats of the south.
Thankfully we have moved past that. (I hope)
Who know what the outcome might have been if the Jews had been able to oppose the government with arms. Perhaps it would have allowed more to escape.
Immaterial? The whole idea of freedom to own arms is for self defense. The Jews did have guns and more guns would not have changed the outcome. Of course they should have had the right to arms, just saying it would have not made a difference in the final outcome.
DeleteYeah, ss, I find you wishy washy defense of this ridiculous argument disappointing. You're usually more honest than that.
DeleteIn 1790, the idea of an armed populace protecting against tyranny made sense. Today it doesn't. Back then the average militiaman had the same weapons as the government. Today that's hardly the case.
Did you seriously quote some Neo-Nazi douchebag on ANYTHING in order to push your silly little narrative? My GOD, Mike. You are a fucking joke.
ReplyDelete