HOME | DD
vonmeer β Gun Control and National Socialists
Published: 2013-01-23 22:23:58 +0000 UTC; Views: 3769; Favourites: 28; Downloads: 28
Redirect to original
Description
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country."--Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426.
(Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke. )
Socialism whether it's Stalins, Hitlers, or Mao's has always been anti-gun and anti-freedom. Gun rights are Civil rights!
Let's look at Hitlers common sense gun control measures.
---Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)---
Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.
If every Jew was armed with an AR15 and a Glock, you think history would be as it was?
Related content
Comments: 43
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 1 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
propaganda trying accused all nationalist is bad .....Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Hitler relaxed gun laws.
"If every Jew was armed with an AR15 and a Glock, you think history would be as it was?"
Those didn't exist back then, and even then it wouldn't have helped. The German military had something called armored vehicles. They tend to make the side that has them win and the side that doesn't lose.
π: 0 β©: 1
Shhh.... You can't tell them facts about the, NSGWP your a racist, bigot, retard, anti-democracy, anachist if you do.
These are free nations here we don't like you expressing facts here!
(Parody)
I'm a American National Socialist, and pro-gun rights.
π: 0 β©: 0
History shows us that we learn nothing from history.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
From what i can conclude Hitler never took away guns, neither Stalin for that matter. Maybe there was a bill for it but I've never seen it.
anyways, Obama is shit. may they do the same to his body has that of Mussolini'sΒ
π: 0 β©: 0
Right, we should give everyone a gun: little kids, the mentally insane and challenged, the blind, everybody needs a gun, cause hey, a guy comes in a school with a a machine gun, instead of regulating it so it never happened in the first place, guy with a gun should just start shooting.
π: 0 β©: 0
www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_β¦
"If every Jew was armed with an AR15 and a Glock, you think history would be as it was?"
Yes, because the government had infinitely more resources. The thought that people with guns could fight against the government, with their police force and advanced war machines, is just funny.
Not only that, but the Nazis in particular were not your average government. Even other governments, such as France and Poland, couldn't stop them. It took nearly the entire world to stop Nazi Germany.Β
So yeah, the Jews having guns would not have helped. At most, it would have given Goebbels and Streicher more inspiration for anti-semiticΒ propaganda, which may have resulted in a second Kristallnacht.
π: 0 β©: 0
Preach it, brother! An armed citizenry is a free citizenry. Or as my friend's bumper sticker says, "Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Politicians prefer unarmed peasants."
π: 0 β©: 0
Hey huys, if you think gun control is his only emulation of Hitler wait until his plan for death camps! [link]
π: 0 β©: 0
Are you seriously comparing your democratically-elected president who may or may not want to limit the sale of guns (and probably wont be able to anyway) to a murderous authoritarian dictator who conquered most of Europe, exterminated up to 20 million people in a vast industrial Holocaust, and started the most destructive war in history?
Wow.
π: 0 β©: 3
For one, I wouldn't use the term "WW2". Too vague. Divide it into the Pacific war(USA vs Japan), Great War(USSR vs Third Reich), Western Front(Britain, France, USA, USSR vs Third Reich), Winter War(Axis Finland vs USSR), and the various other fronts such as Italy.
The fronts that the Reich were involved in were not Hitler's fault. Churchill started this main part of WW2. Hitler took claim to the land that belongs to the Reich(which had a 80% rate of approval for him, they loved him) and went against the private bankers - going against private bankers and corporations is how nearly every war starts. Along the way, he created his own banking pole, without a backing, demonstrating the true meaning of money. By doing this, Hitler performed the greatest, fastest economic recovery in the history of the world, and his nation went from Europe's poorest to their richest.
It's widely accepted that Churchill did start the war, and for the purpose of justice, as Hitler was evil. This is completely false, no war has ever been fought to "fight evil". Churchill did not begin aggression because of the holocaust, or the "mistreatment" of German citizens. The sole reason for this war was the banks. The allies didn't give a shit about evil. Stalin brought the death of between 10 and 40 million people. British colonial influence made drastic changes to China's economy, which brought the starvation of 4 to 7 million - this act alone killed more than the holocaust. Around the time of the siege of Berlin, hundreds of thousands of German citizens were fleeing the ruins of their home, burned and starved by the allies. They sought refuge in Dresden, a city that the Reich converted into a hospital state. A place for refugees and the wounded to be safe from the savagery of war. Churchill ordered this city to be bombed, killing more people than the atomic bomb did, even though these people were nearly all innocent, and the soldiers stationed there had long since surrendered and deserted their army. Following the Allies' victory, Stalin had the hundreds of thousands of German prisoners he took sent to concentration camps deep within the motherland, where they disappeared from history, likely starved like the prisoners of the Reich. Britain and the USA had one million German prisoners, who were detained to a camp with the sole purpose of starvation. Depending on your stance on the holocaust, more innocents could have been killed in just that ally camp than the entire holocaust.
Hitler did not conquer Europe, read a history book that isn't from the USA or Russia. The beginning of his "conquest" was the Rhineland and Zharland, areas full of Germans that were stolen after WW1. They were neglected by their new French rulers, and looked up to this Hitler character. He got more and more involved with these territories, and eventually statistics were released - 80% of the Rhineland wanted to be admitted to Hitler's Reich, 90% of the Zharland. He peacefully conquered these areas, the people happier and wealthier under their new dictator. Austria went similarly, though with some resistance. East Prussia, land in the Weimar(Poland) that was taken from Germany, declared themselves citizens of the Reich, rebelling from the Weimar. The Polish government allowed this, and negotiated terms with Hitler that the land was indeed his. Meanwhile, FDR and Winston Churchill condemned EVERY act Hitler made, no matter how peaceful or loved. The Reich was geographically separated from East Prussia, so to get from one end of the Reich to Prussia, you needed to travel through Weimar. The Poles shot down German passenger planes doing this, and destroyed resource trains between the areas. Weimar was a puppet government owned by Britain, as it was Britain who created them after WW1. Churchill was behind this aggression, and he sanctioned that East Prussia remains disconnected from the Reich and that it will be economically strangled. Being criticized by everyone who didn't know who he was, Hitler was cornered with hate. He had one choice: to invade Poland and help his people in EP. The only people within his land who hated him were the Jews. The non-Jews hated and mistreated the Jews there. Hitler was rational. Jews were a minority, Germans the majority. Why would he change his laws and ideals for a minority? Shouldn't the government cater to the majority, the ones loving the regime and helping it? The Jews lived miserable lives, and were inclined to leave.
If you're lazy and don't play any sports but you end up in a sports oriented social group, you won't fit in. They'll probably make fun of you and it will be a challenge. Should they change their opinions so you fit in? No, you should go where you're excepted. You're the minority, you don't matter to them. The exact same situation was happening to the Jews, but there would be more serious losses for finding where they fit in. The British and US liked diversity, they wanted a variety of people. Germany didn't, Germany wanted to be German with German culture. Boats of Jews were offered to Britain, Canada, and the US, with a reminder that if they were not accepted, "their fate will be unknown." All the boats were rejected. The Jews were transported to camps where there were plans to relocate them to Jerusalem, where they would have a special air of spirituality, as it was their home. The war blockaded this, Hitler couldn't afford to deport them yet. They were put to forced labor(not saying this isn't evil) in these camps. Soviet bombers destroyed all of the food and resources in Germany, causing mass starvation and refugee movement. They bombed the camps, killing many prisoners. This also spread the flow of Typhus, which is attributed to over 60% of the deaths in the holocaust. Hitler wanted to feed his people, not his prisoners. He allowed the Jews to starve, and Himmler devised the holocaust. Hitler approved it and left it in the hands of the SS, occupied with other issues.
If you believe the history books and witnesses of the holocaust, watch this documentary to its full extent:
[link]
It has a few things which are theoretical, but a major portion of it is entirely plausible.
It should also be noted the Red Cross changed the death toll of the holocaust to 271k in 2012.
So, what good did Hitler do?
-Extreme economic recovery
-Restored greatness of Germany
-Able to manage a country, crime at all time low
-Logical banking system
-Purged corruption
-Restored a nationwide idea system
-Nazi inventions:
-Jet plane
-Microwave oven
-First assault rifle
-Fanta soda
-Night vision
-First stealth plane
-Largest tank ever built
-Relativity
-Most efficient train system of the era
-Nazi improvements/feats:
-Submarines
-Sub-orbit space flights
-Worked on rocket launch
-Electron microscope
-Nuclear energy
What good did Obama do? Nothing.
And bad?
-Opposite of Hitler's economic work, greatest economic destruction in history
-Socialized medicine in a free country(doesn't work)
-Exponential growth of unmanned drones
-Acceleration of Iraq, Afghanistan war
-NDAA
-Completely illogical reaction to Boston bombing, Newtown shooting, used as reason to infringe rights
-Removed 4th amendment
-Removed right to protest from bill of rights
-Supports infringing of rights in plight of "security"
-Monsanto protection act
-Greatly increased support to Israel
-Exponentially multiplied the amount of aid given to FSA, cartels, Taliban
-Put USA on side of FSA, they now endorse Sharia law more than moderate authoritarianism
Think with your mind, not your heart. Hitler was better than Obama.
π: 0 β©: 2
Read a little history...
British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlin, declared war on Germany in 1939, after Adolf Hitler failed to honour the Munich agreement and his forces invaded Poland.
Winston Churchill became PM a few months later after Chamberlin resigned.
π: 0 β©: 0
Made a mistake there, didn't mean to say Weimar
π: 0 β©: 0
Please. You're obviously confused.
Reasons Obama is secretly Hitler:
-He totally committed genocide, and now 6 million Jews are dead because of him. Totally.
-He tries to enforce stuff, like laws.
-As a man capable of growing facial hair, Obama might have (or had, at one point) a Hitler-esque mustache.
Alternatively, reasons Obama is secretly a turtle:
-He constantly talks about oil. Shell is an oil company.
-He's in pretty good shape, which leads me to believes he eats lettuce and likes to go swimming.
-He's a fan of Al Green. "GREEN." Coincidence? I think not.
π: 0 β©: 0
[link] Just look. He's like Hitler in more ways than one.
π: 0 β©: 0
Gun banning starting
π: 0 β©: 0
Six pistols in the Warsaw Ghetto kept the SS out for weeks. Guy could get hurt, that way!
π: 0 β©: 0
How dare you make a completely and justified comparison of what Hitler did in Germany and what Democrats are trying to do in America!! I find it reprehensibly factual and disgracefully accurate.
Joyous shame upon you.
π: 0 β©: 0
lol, usa citizen obsessed with weapons. it is like you (plural, not specially you) want to kill everybody
(don't pretend to be offensive, just a comment, don't look to start an argue)
π: 0 β©: 1
That makes no sense, don't post while drunk bro.
π: 0 β©: 1
LOL I am alcohol abstemious
π: 0 β©: 0
I wish it wasn't, but thanks bro!
π: 0 β©: 0
It is how it was, first they will call for a universal background...which will fail. Then will come universal registration...which will also fail is not by itself then it will intentionally will fail. Then universal confiscation which will start an uprising hopefully before the inevitable universal execution.
π: 0 β©: 1
Here's an idea; shut up and learn some common sense.
π: 0 β©: 1
What a nice non-factual attack you have there. could you please try to post something of substance, I know it might be hard for you but please...just try.
π: 0 β©: 1
Your comment had absolutely no substance what so ever, the entire piece has no substance.
π: 0 β©: 1
More illogical drivel, how bout you pick up a history book and learn how past attempts to "grab guns" have started.
π: 0 β©: 1
As if that is EVER going to happen. Republicans are behind voter ID laws but yet are opposed to stricter background checks for guns? Both this laws infringe on liberty, something Republicans champion, the word irony comes to mind.
π: 0 β©: 1
-yet are opposed to stricter background checks for guns?- so i guess there are more than 50 republican senators that voted stricter background checks down? Oh wait....that was bi-partisan opposition.
-Both this laws infringe on liberty- well first off only one of THESE laws infringe anything, your right to have arms and defend yourself.....the ID law makes sure that people that can legally vote are not tainted by those who can't legally vote.
π: 0 β©: 0
I don't think Obama is Hitler either (he is slightly to the left 
I never called Obama Hitler (he is next to him, slightly to the left as I said above)...but comparisons need be made as he does Hitlery style stuff.. (That's a good word Hitlery)
Just a few examples.....
..What president has children singing anthems to? (Obama, Mao, Hitler)
..What president had a personal symbol?( and a round one like the nazis makes it even weirder?)(Obama, Hitler)
..What president has such media following? (Obama, Stalin, Mao, Hitler)
..What president has called for sweeping Hitleresque gun controls and abuses of power? (Well Clinton did, but no-one worshiped him, Obama, Hitler)
..What president has been repeatedly compared to the messiah? (Obama, Hitler, Kim Il-sung)
The list can go on.. Fascist is as fascist do.
Obama is misguided, and obviously corrupt... He won't be leading anyone to any gas chambers. That's not the point though, his methodology is fascist, and openly fascist. He is a greater danger though, as only he can undermine our rights and families safety.
My little brother joined the Americorps (kinda like brownshirts) and talks about Obama as worshipful as a Hitler youth did their Fuhrer.
I was having problems a few years back and almost went out of business. I told him how much we work and suffer, how much taxes were killing us.
This punk, living with my Mom and pushing Obamanomic's on the taxpayers dime told me...
"Some people need to suffer more so others can suffer less, If you lose your home, you lose your home. You can always rent."
That was the last time I ever talked to my brother and have since written him out of my will. Nothing ever has hurt me as much as my "brothers" words.
Obama invites comparison to Hitler, if he walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...we are of course treat him like a duck. Let's hope we make that a lame duck.
Plus, they compared Bush to Hitler and Clinton to Hitler.....Obama really fit's the bill more than those two in the Hitler comparisons.
π: 0 β©: 2
Hitler = Evil
What Hitler does = Evil
Hitler = Liking Dogs
Lincoln = Liking Dogs
Lincoln = Evil
All hail John Wilkes Booth
π: 0 β©: 0
Only someone with clear stupidity can compare Obama to Hitler. This guy clearly is.
π: 0 β©: 0