gun control

ADL alarmed by author speaking to Congress who links gun control and Holocaust

WASHINGTON (JTA) — The Anti-Defamation League expressed concern that a witness at a congressional hearing on a controversial gun bill  wrote a book arguing that gun control rendered Jews defenseless during the Holocaust.

Stephen Halbrook, who wrote “Gun Control in the Third Reich” in 2015, is set to appear Tuesday at a meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources, which is considering the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act. The bill would loosen controls on transporting firearms across state lines, an area that Halbrook has litigated as a prominent gun rights attorney.

“We have long been concerned about facile comparisons of gun control legislation in America to policies upheld by Nazi Germany during the Holocaust,” Jonathan Greenblatt, the ADL’s national director, said in an email to JTA. “The national debate over gun control is a divisive issue with many strong opinions. While there are legitimate arguments on both sides, the notion that Jews could have saved themselves from the Nazi onslaught is not one of them. It is historically inaccurate and deeply offensive to bring the Holocaust into this debate where it simply does not belong.”

Halbrook’s book argued that a key element in the Nazis’ repressive policies was the disarming of Nazi enemies, a theory embraced last year by the then-presidential candidate and now-Housing Secretary Ben Carson. Halbrook emphasizes in his book that gun control was not a factor leading to the Holocaust. Instead, he says, it facilitated it.

Historians of Nazi Germany have widely discredited the theory, saying that whatever restrictions on gun purchases the Nazis placed on Jews must be seen as part of the array of repressive measures Nazis imposed on Jews and not as Nazis favoring gun controls per se. In fact, the Nazis in 1938 loosened controls on gun ownership for non-Jewish Germans.

Others have questioned how Jews in Germany, who made up only 1 percent of the population, could have staged an effective rebellion against the Nazis’ military regime.

JTA was alerted to Halbrook’s scheduled appearance before the committee by Americans for Responsible Solutions, a gun control advocacy group founded by Gabrielle Giffords, the Jewish Democratic congresswoman from Arizona who was shot and critically wounded by a gunman in 2011 in a deadly attack. She has since retired from Congress.

David Chipman, a senior adviser to the group, also appeared as a witness, testifying against a provision of the bill that would loosen restrictions on silencers. Its sponsor, Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., says silencers protect hunters’ hearing.

Advertisements

DISGUSTING: WIKILEAKS REVEALS HILLARY’S CAMP CAREFULLY HANDPICKS WHICH SHOOTINGS TO EXPLOIT FOR HER GUN CONTROL AGENDA

2016-10-13_13-27-25

In a sane world not run by psychopaths, Wikileaks would be destroying Hillary Clinton’s campaign right now. There would be no way Hillary could even look herself in a mirror, let alone continue to run to be the president of people the leaks show she hates. In fact, by continuing to run, Hillary has proven how utterly disconnected from the rest of the country she truly is, and how much she does not care at all about how much the majority of the country truly loathes the thought of her being president.

She obviously just wants the power.

As the mainstream media continues to play deaf and dumb, new revelations buried in thousands of Hillary campaign manager John Podesta’s leaked emails are spewing out by the day. It just continues to get worse and worse and now, even more disgusting.

Hillary has openly called for more gun control on the campaign trail and she even vowed to sign gun control executive orders as president. This leaked email chain involves a back-and-forth to thoughtfully handpick which shootings Hillary should exploit and propagandize in order to further her anti-Second Amendment gun control agenda.

Via Breitbart:

In an email exchange dated January 14, 2016, Clinton campaign staffers are trying to figure out which shootings to highlight in a gun control essay intended to appeal to mothers. The essay, written by Marie Claire, was in draft form at the time emails were being exchanged, and Clinton had been asked to contribute to it. As a result, staffers were trying to decide whether to include Davis’ shooting death or discard it.

Campaign director of engagement, De’Ara Balenger, reviewed the draft, then emailed:

This is great. My edits are attached. The only flag here is that Jordan Davis was killed by a white man, so arguably – this crime was racially motivated, which takes this outside the discussion of gun violence. Was there another mother in the Chicago meeting where the shooting was NOT racially motivated? If yes, we should use that story instead of Jordan Davis.

Staffer Corey Ciorciari replied, “You know where I stand on this. It can be racially motivated and gun violence should still very much be part of the discussion. Even more so here given that Jordan’s mom is one of the leading gun violence prevention proponents in the country.”

Ultimately, Hillary did not discuss Jordan Davis in her final essay. Guess the details weren’t convenient enough for her agenda.

How disgusting and dehumanizing the way they talk about real people whose lives have been destroyed like toys. “Can you find another mother — WHOSE SON OR DAUGHTER HAS BEEN MURDERED — whose narrative we can twist and use to try to take away America’s right to keep and bear arms and protect themselves from also being murdered?”

Sickening. These people truly are vultures.

Hillary Clinton Wants Your Guns!

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=1150

 

Hillary denies she wants to “repeal” the Second Amendment.

But it’s all about jargon and how it’s nuanced to dupe and deceive.

[Clip: “I do not want to repeal the Second Amendment, I do not want to take anyone’s gun away.”]

But Trump insists she does.

[Clip: “Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment; she wants to abolish it, okay. Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns away, she wants to abolish the Second Amendment, she wants to take the bullets away.”]

If he’s wrong, why can’t Hillary give a straight answer?

[Clip: “Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it’s not linked to service in a militia?”
“I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia. And there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulations.”

“And the “Heller” decision also does say there can be some restrictions. But that’s not what I asked. I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?”

“If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation.”]

She’s bearing a two-edged sword.

Hillary’s answer implies the Second Amendment may or may not be a constitutional right. But even if it is, she wants to regulate it.

If she gets in she’ll get the judges that will ‘regulate’ with the other gun-grabbers, Ginsburg and Breyer.

Trump warns that’s exactly what she’ll do.

[Clip: “Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. And by the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks, although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”]

They need to know Hillary’s plan and be prepared to fight it.

[Clip: “I’m going to continue to speak out for comprehensive background checks…”]

That’s privacy invasion.

You want to give your gun to your son?

You will be forced to do the transfer through a licensed dealer who will run the background check on your boy.

This will create a national registry of gun owners—not criminals, since they don’t get their guns legally.

Hillary and her backers like Bloomberg, Soros, Schumer, Blumenthal, are playing the long game:

Register now, confiscate later.

[Clip: “Closing the gun show loophole; closing the online loophole…”]

There’s no “loophole.” Both already do background checks.

Hillary would like nothing more than to see both shut down. [Clip]

[”Reversing the bill that Senator Sanders voted for and I voted against giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers.”]

That’s the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” which protects gun dealers from being sued by victims.

This will easily close down thousands of gun stores who haven’t the means to defend themselves.

Then why not make “server” companies liable for their customers’ lies. Huh Hillary?

And if taking away guns will ’stop violence’ maybe taking away email servers will stop Hillary from lying?

Fat chance.

[Clip: “Back to handguns, my name is Gene Woljahowski, recently Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? Why, if we can’t, why can’t we?”
“Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the UK Is a good example. Why? Each of them have had mass killings. Australia had a huge mass killing about 25, 20 or 25 years ago. Canada did as well, so did, did the UK. And in reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws. In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program.”]

It’s jargon to dupe and deceive.

Buyback in Australia was an attempt to mollify gun owners whose firearms had been declared contraband.

Take the bucks or surrender your guns, that was their ‘choice.’

[Clip: “By offering to buy back the guns, they were able, you know, to curtail the supply, and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future. Now communities have done that in our country. Several communities have done gun buyback programs. I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level.”]

That means buyback or surrender – on a national level.

And “gun free” Australia is now rife with gun crimes.

For when guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have guns.

And Hillary, the biggest outlaw of them all, will be sleeping on your guns.

The Jewish Driving Force Behind Gun Control

http://www.renegadetribune.com/driving-force-behind-gun-control/

 

 

Is there a certain group that is behind this massive push to have us all disarmed? Why are they so hell-bent on making sure that we are unable to defend ourselves?

Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCWSFUtgK1c

HAVE WE REACHED THE TIPPING POINT OF GUN CONTROL?

Over the past 30 hours, the gun debate in America has taken a dramatic turn.

At 2:11 a.m. on Thursday, Democratic Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy declared victory, 14 hours and 50 minutes after he took over the chamber floor to protest Congress’ years-long inaction on gun control measures. Beginning at 11:21 a.m. on Wednesday, three days after 49 individuals were killed by a gunman in the Orlando, Florida, nightclub mass shooting, Murphy vowed not to concede until Senate Republicans agreed to allow two votes: one to prohibit suspected terrorists from buying guns, and another to expand background checks on potential gun purchases. By Thursday, there wasn’t a hard guarantee that either amendment would pass, but Murphy implied there was an understanding from both sides that votes needed to be cast to curb gun violence in the United States.

At a press conference on Thursday morning, which had a tagline of “disarm hate,” Senate Democrats were joined by Tina Meins, whose father was killed in the December 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, and by the Reverend Sharon Risher, whose mother and two cousins died in the June 2015 mass shooting in Charleston, South Carolina. They argued the country has reached a tipping point in the gun movement, enhanced by Americans’ ongoing fear of terrorism, including homegrown lone wolves and the Islamic State militant group, or ISIS. “Everyone realizes that the terrorist we need to fear is not on the streets of Aleppo or Mosul or Fallujah,” Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey told reporters Thursday morning. “It’s on the streets of the United States. And they will have guns unless we pass tough laws.”

Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, who remained in the Senate chamber for the duration of Murphy’s 14-hour-50-minute filibuster, said Americans want change, and the hot-button issue of guns in America right now presents an opportunity to show the country that it’s possible.

“The most difficult question I am asked, having spent the better part of 25 years on this issue, is ‘What has changed?’” he said. “The answer is that Americans have changed in their realization that gun violence cannot only be prevented, but it must be prevented.”

Murphy is an outspoken gun control advocate, whose state is home to Newtown, where the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre occurred. His filibuster began when he interrupted a Senate debate on the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations bill, in which Democrats had demanded the inclusion of gun amendments.

“My legs are a little bit rubbery, but my heart is strong this morning because I know that we made a difference yesterday, and I know that we galvanized support all across this country,” he told reporters.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, also said seven months ago that the gun control movement is at a tipping point. “We’re finally at the precipice we’ve been waiting for,” he said at a Brady Campaign event in November. The organization, one of the leading gun control advocacy groups, works to extend background checks at the national level to all sales of firearms, including at gun shows and online. Federal law currently doesn’t apply to about 40 percent of total gun sales that occur each day.

At the media event Thursday—the eve of the one-year mark of the deadly Charleston shooting—in whichnine black worshippers were gunned down during Bible study at the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church—Murphy gathered with his colleagues to discuss the immediate steps they could take to reduce gun violence. They vowed to continue the fight until change occurs. He said Senate Democrats decided to take the floor on Wednesday because the legislative body had been ignoring the Orlando massacre. Overnight, he ended the filibuster with the story of 6-year-old Dylan Hockley and a teacher’s aide, Anne Marie Murphy, who tried to shield the boy from bullets in the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre; both were two of the 26 individuals killed on December 14, 2012.

Both pending measures Murphy stood behind on the Senate floor are backed by Democrats. The first, an amendment California Senator Dianne Feinstein offered in December after San Bernardino, would allow the government to ban those on federal terror watch lists from buying guns and explosives. Murphy discussed the second on the Senate floor, which would mandate universal background checks for all gun sales, including at gun shows and online.

As for the GOP plan, Republican Texas Senator John Cornyn, the Senate Majority Whip and second-ranking Senate Republican, described a rival proposal on the Senate floor Thursday that would notify law enforcement officials when an individual who is on the terror watch list tries to purchase a firearm. The U.S. Department of Justice then would have 72 hours to show probable cause that the possible buyer has committed or could commit a terrorist act. His proposal, along with Feinstein’s, already was struck down in December after the San Bernardino massacre.

Feinstein and Cornyn now are discussing a way to reach a compromise on their two measures. At the press conference, Feinstein said the Senate likely could vote on her legislation Tuesday.

Meanwhile, Republican Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey, who in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre co-wrote a background checks bill that in April 2013 the Senate ultimately struck down, joined Murphy on the floor Wednesday to urge his colleagues to ensure suspected terrorists can’t buy guns. His legislation would require the attorney general to create an annually adjusted list of likely terrorists who could be blocked from buying guns.

During his filibuster, Murphy permitted questions from 40 of his Democratic colleagues, including Senators Blumenthal, Markey and Charles Schumer. But he never conceded the floor. His efforts were applauded by politicians and activists across the country: Democratic presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton, her rival Bernie Sanders and Erica Lafferty Smegielski, whose mother died at Sandy Hook Elementary, all commended his actions. After the eight-hour mark, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid issued a statement, urging Republicans “to find the courage” to stand up to the National Rifle Association by joining Democrats to demand change. He also called the negotiations “little more than a smokescreen” from the GOP attempting to give themselves political cover while they march in lockstep with the NRA.

It will soon be determined whether the Democrats have found an unexpected ally in Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump on the matter. The New York billionaire on Twitter Wednesdayexpressed interest in meeting with the NRA to discuss “not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no-fly list, to buy guns.” The lobbying group, which boasts more than 4 million members, responded by saying its leaders are happy to have a conversation with Trump, whom they endorsed in May, but on Wednesday said that its objective remains ensuring that Americans wrongly placed on the list are given their legal rights to due process. Republican leaders share the NRA’s view that stricter gun laws would undercut the Second Amendment.

New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, who also remained in the chamber through the duration of Murphy’s filibuster, on Thursday called on his colleagues to have “courageous empathy” to ensure domestic tranquility because victims aren’t content to wait for change.

“This is a fight that should not belong only to the victims of gun violence,” he said. “This is an American fight.”

Filibustering for gun control, Senator Tim Kaine (White Freemason) invokes ‘hero’ Holocaust survivor

http://www.jta.org/2016/06/16/news-opinion/politics/filibustering-for-gun-control-senator-invokes-heroism-of-holocaust-survivor

In the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, engineering professor Liviu Librescu, a Romania-born Israeli Holocaust survivor, died blocking the classroom door and shouting “hurry” as his students fled through a window.

It was Yom Hashoah, Israel’s Holocaust Memorial Day.

Librescu, 76, was among 32 people killed in the mass shooting, the deadliest in U.S. history at the time. On Sunday, a gunman who swore allegiance to the Islamic State group massacred 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando.

Tim Kaine, in 2007 the governor of Virginia and and now its senator, is still haunted by Librescu’s murder and his heroism, and he attempted to make sense of it late Wednesday night.

Kaine spoke during a filibuster in the U.S Senate led by Democrats to bring to a vote measures that would ban people on the U.S. terrorist watch list from getting gun licenses and that would add background checks to guns purchased at gun shows and over the internet.

Liviu Librescu and his wife, Marlena Librescu, in an undated photograph (Librescu family via Getty Images)

“So somebody who survived the Holocaust of the Nazis, who survived the Soviet oppression of his native land, couldn’t survive the holocaust of gun violence in this country,” Kaine said of Librescu.

For seven minutes of the 15 hours straight that Democrats spoke, Kaine addressed Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who led the filibuster and who is still haunted the 2012 Newtown massacre of 20 first-graders and six adults in his home state.

Kaine, at times pausing to maintain his composure, tackled a question that has anguished Jews throughout the post-Holocaust period: What are our choices in the face of evil?:

While the students who went into that class on the morning of April 16, they weren’t thinking about Yom Hashoah, Liviu Librescu was — and I’ve got to believe when that shooting started on this day when he’s thinking about what he’s been through, that he’s faced with an existential – am I going to be a perpetrator, am I going to be a victim, am I going to be a survivor, am I going to be a hero, and he chose to be a hero, and he lost his life.

He chose to be a hero and he lost his life.

Would I do that? Would I stand in front of a door, and block it and take bullets and tell my students to get out of the window, would I do that?

I cannot honestly stand here and say that I would.

I can’t say that I would have the courage of Liviu Librescu. He was a hero. I cant say I’d be a hero.

But in this body we don’t have to be heroes, we just have to not be bystanders.

We’ve been bystanders in this body, we’ve been bystanders in this nation as this carnage of gun violence has gone from one tragedy to the next.

To cast a vote, that’s not heroic, to stand up and say, we can be safer tomorrow, we can protect people’s lives, that’s not heroic that’s just saying I will not be a bystander, and that’s all we have to do, stop being bystanders.

Adolf Hitler and Gun Control Laws

http://www.renegadetribune.com/adolf-hitler-gun-control-laws/

 

 

Youtube link

Most people think that “Hitler took the guns” because shills like Alex Jones have been repeating this law for years, but this really was not the case at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

Supreme Court Issues Shocking Ruling In First Post-Scalia 2nd Amendment Case

Conservatives have been worried about the sanctity of the Second Amendment following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch gun rights advocate on the Supreme Court.

A decision released Monday, however, has been hailed a victory for gun rights, and conservatives everywhere will be relieved to see the court standing up for the Constitution even without Scalia.

The court overturned a decision out of Massachusetts that determined that stun guns were not covered by the Second Amendment, siding instead with a woman who said she carried one as protection against an abusive former boyfriend.

In an unsigned decision with no dissents, the country’s highest court ruled in favor of Jaime Caetano, who in 2011 was arrested for possession of a stun gun in violation of a state law banning such weapons. Caetano said she carried the stun gun for self-defense because her former partner was violent and abusive.

In March 2015, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the stun gun was not covered by the constitutional right to bear arms. The Supreme Court, however, decided that ruling was inconsistent with a 2008 Supreme Court decision declaring an individual right to bear arms.
The 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, had left open many questions about the extent of the individual right, the firearms covered and when government regulations would stand. Although the latest decision does not further clarify many of the case’s unanswered questions, it does require the Massachusetts court to hear it again in light of the 2008 decision. In doing so, it sent a message to lower courts that there is a broad range of weapons covered by the Second Amendment.

In a concurring opinion, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas wanted that message to be even stronger.

“If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe,” Alito wrote, according to USA Today.

Massachusetts, like liberals across the country, tried to argue that stun guns should not be protected because that type of weapon would not have been the type Congress envisioned in 1789 when it adopted the Second Amendment.

Fortunately, the justices rejected that approach. Perhaps they know that the same logic could be applied to other constitutional guarantees. Imagine if we applied the same approach to the First Amendment. Would online forms of media not be covered by freedom of the press just because the Founders may not have “envisioned” the World Wide Web when they wrote those sacred words?

Conservatives everywhere should be rejoicing at this post-Scalia gun rights decision, but there will undoubtedly be more and more anti-Second Amendment cases coming up that we must keep an eye on.

Ted Nugent vs The ADL – Who Is Behind Gun Control?

This video, Dr. David Duke, PhD and former member of the House of Representatives-LA completely and utterly refutes the vicious J. Greenblatt, ADL attack on Rocker Ted Nugent. It definitely answers the question of who is behind gun control in America and the hypocrisy of Zionists who have exactly opposite policies for their precious Israel than they do for America and the entirety of the Western World.

MYTH OF GUN CONTROL IN GERMANY, 1928-1945

Gun Control

by William L. Pierce | A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that the National Socialist government of Germany under Adolf Hitler did not permit the private ownership of firearms. Totalitarian governments, they have been taught in their high school civics classes, do not trust their citizens and do not dare permit them to keep firearms. Thus, one often hears the statement, “You know, the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was outlaw firearms,” or, “The first thing Hitler did in Germany was round up all the guns.”

One can understand why many American gun owners want to believe this. They see in the current effort of their own government to take away their right to keep and bear arms a limitation of an essential element of their freedom and a move toward tyranny, and they want to characterize the gun-grabbers in the most negative way they can. Adolf Hitler has been vilified continuously for the past 60 years or so by the mass media in America, and certainly no politician or officeholder wants to be compared with him. If the gun-confiscation effort can be portrayed convincingly as something of which Hitler would have approved, it will have been effectively tarred.

Gun Control 1928-1945This identification of the inclination to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms with National Socialism and Adolf Hitler has been strengthened recently by clever magazine advertisements which show Hitler with his arm outstretched in a Roman salute under a heading: “All in favor of gun control raise your right hand.” A Jewish group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), quite noisy for its size, has been especially zealous in promoting the idea that the current gun-control effort in America has its roots in Germany during the Hitler period. This group has gone so far as to claim in several articles published in popular magazines read by firearms enthusiasts that the current restrictive legislation being proposed by the U.S. government is modeled on a gun-control statute enacted by Germany’s National Socialist government: the German Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) of March 18, 1938.

Again, one can understand the motivation of the JPFO. Many non-Jewish firearms owners are well aware that the movement to restrict their rights is led and promoted primarily by Jews, and anti-Jewish feeling has been growing among them. They know that the controlled news media, which are almost unanimously in favor of abridging or abolishing the Second Amendment, are very much under the influence of Jews, and they know that the most vocal anti-gun legislators in the Congress also are Jews. It is natural for a group such as the JPFO to mount a damage- control effort and attempt to prevent anti-Jewish feeling from becoming even stronger among gun owners. Their strategy is to deflect the blame from their kinsmen in the media and the government and direct it onto their most hated enemies, the National Socialists — or at least to create enough smoke to obscure the facts and keep the gun-owning public confused.

Unfortunately for those who would like to link Hitler and the National Socialists with gun control, the entire premise for such an effort is false. German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been enacted by the government preceding his: a left-center government which had contained a number of Jews.

It is not just that the National Socialist firearms legislation was the opposite of what it has been claimed to have been by persons who want to tar modern gun-grabbers with the “Nazi” brush: the whole spirit of Hitler’s government was starkly different from its portrayal by America’s mass media. The facts, in brief, are these:

  • The National Socialist government of Germany, unlike the government in Washington today, did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had. Unlike American presidents, he did not have to wear body armor and have shields of bulletproof glass in front of him whenever he spoke in public. At public celebrations he rode standing in an open car as it moved slowly through cheering crowds. Communists made several attempts to assassinate him, and his government stamped down hard on communism, virtually wiping it out in Germany. Between upright, law-abiding German citizens and Adolf Hitler, however, there was a real love affair, with mutual trust and respect.
  • 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.
  • Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany in 1928, five years before the National Socialists gained power. Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Five years later his government got around to rewriting the gun law enacted a decade earlier by his predecessors, substantially amel ior a ting it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years; and provisions restricting the amount of ammunition or the number of firearms an individual could own were dropped). Hitler’s government may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but the National Socialists had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. Again, the firearms law enacted by Hitler’s government enhanced the rights of Germans to keep and bear arms; no new restrictions were added, and many pre-existing restrictions were relaxed or eliminated.
  • At the end of the Second World War, American GIs in the occupying force were astounded to discover how many German civilians owned private firearms. Tens of thousands of pistols looted from German homes by GIs were brought back to the United States after the war. In 1945 General Eisenhower ordered all privately owned firearms in the American occupation zone of Germany confiscated, and Germans were required to hand in their shotguns and rifles as well as any handguns which had not already been stolen. In the Soviet occupation zone German civilians were summarily shot if they were found in possession of even a single cartridge.

Jews, it should be noted, were not Germans, even if they had been born in Germany. The National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic terms, and under Hitler Jews were not accorded full rights of citizenship. National Socialist legislation progressively excluded Jews from key professions: teaching, the media, the practice of law, etc. The aim was not only to free German life from an oppressive and degenerative Jewish influence, but to persuade Jews to emigrate. The German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, specifically excluded Jews from manufacturing or dealing in firearms or munitions, but it did not exclude them from owning or bearing personal firearms. The exclusion of Jews from the firearms business rankled them as much as any other exclusion, and in their typically ethnocentric fashion they have misrepresented the law involved as an anti-gun law in an effort to cast their enemies in a bad light.
It should be noted in passing that the restrictions placed on Jews by the National Socialists had the intended effect: between 1933 and 1939 two-thirds of the Jews residing in Germany emigrated, reducing the Jewish population of the country from 600,000 when Hitler became Chancellor in 1933 to 200,000 at the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. Jews in the United States, looking at this period from their own narrowly focused viewpoint, have described these peacetime years of the National Socialist government as a time of darkness, terror, and regression, whereas for the German people it was a time of hope, joy, and spiritual and material renewal.

Much the same type of distortion is seen in the portrayal of the United States in the early 1950s: the so-called “McCarthy Era.” Senator Joseph McCarthy (Republican, Wisconsin) used his position as chairman of the Senate’s Government Operations Committee to expose the widespread communist infiltration of the U.S. government and other U.S. institutions which had taken place during the Second World War. A substantial majority of the communists who were dragged reluctantly out into the light of day by his efforts were Jews. As a result, the controlled media always have portrayed the period as one of terror and repression, when everyone was frightened of Senator McCarthy’s “witch-hunt.” Of course, it was nothing of the sort to non-Jewish Americans, who were not intimidated in the least. History viewed through a Jewish lens — i.e., through media controlled by Jews — always is distorted in a way corresponding to Jewish interests and concerns.

Both the German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, enacted by the National Socialists, and the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, which was enacted by an anti-National Socialist government, are given below in full, first in facsimile and then in English translation. A little background information first, however, may help the reader to understand their significance. After Germany’s defeat in the First World War (a defeat in which Germany’s Jews played no small part, demoralizing the home front with demonstrations and other subversive activity much as they did in America during the Vietnam war), the Kaiser abdicated, and liberals and leftists seized control of the government in 1918. Hitler, recovering in a military hospital from a British poison-gas attack which had blinded him temporarily, made the decision to go into politics and fight against the traitors he felt were responsible for Germany’s distress.

The tendency of Germany’s new rulers after the First World War was much the same as it is for the liberals in America today: they promoted cosmopolitanism, internationalism, and egalitarianism. By 1923 economic conditions in Germany had become catastrophic, and there was much public unrest. The communists had made major inroads into the labor movement and were a growing threat to the country.

Hitler had indeed gone into politics, and his National Socialists battled the communists in the streets of Germany’s cities and gradually came to be seen by many patriotic Germans in the working class and the middle class as the only force which could save Germany from a communist takeover and total ruin. Hitler’s National Socialists continued to win recruits and gain strength during the 1920s. The communists, with aid from the Soviet Union, also continued to grow. The political situation became increasingly unstable as the government lost popular support.

The government’s response was to substantially tighten up restrictions on the rights of German citizens to keep and bear arms. The Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, was the most substantial effort in this regard. This law was enacted by a left-center government hostile to the National Socialists (the government was headed by Chancellor Wilhelm Marx and consisted of a coalition of Socialists, including many Jews, and Catholic Centrists).

Five years later, in 1933, the National Socialists were in power, Hitler headed the government, and the communist threat was crushed decisively. The National Socialists began undoing the social and economic damage done by their predecessors. Germany was restored to full employment, degeneracy and corruption were rooted out, Jews and their collaborators were removed from one facet of national life after another, and the German people entered a new era of national freedom, health, and prosperity.

Finally, in 1938, the National Socialist government got around to enacting a new firearms law to replace the one enacted by their opponents ten years earlier. The highlights of the 1938 law, especially as it applied to ordinary citizens rather than manufacturers or dealers, follow:

  • Handguns may be purchased only on submission of a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), which must be used within one year from the date of issue. Muzzle- loading handguns are exempted from the permit requirement. [The 1928 law had required a permit for the purchase of long guns as well, but the National Socialists dropped this requirement.]
  • Holders of a permit to carry weapons (Waffenschein) or of a hunting license do not need a Weapons Acquisition Permit in order to acquire a handgun.
  • A hunting license authorizes its bearer to carry hunting weapons and handguns.
  • Firearms and ammunition, as well as swords and knives, may not be sold to minors under the age of 18 years. [The age limit had been 20 years in the 1928 law.]
  • Whoever carries a firearm outside of his dwelling, his place of employment, his place of business, or his fenced property must have on his person a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein). A permit is not required, however, for carrying a firearm for use at a police-approved shooting range.
  • A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms may only be issued to persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit. In particular, a permit may not be issued to:
  1. persons under the age of 18 years;
  2. legally incompetent or mentally retarded persons;
  3. Gypsies or vagabonds;
  4. persons under mandatory police supervision [i.e., on parole] or otherwise temporarily without civil rights;
  5. persons convicted of treason or high treason or known to be engaged in activities hostile to the state;
  6. persons who for assault, trespass, a breach of the peace, resistance to authority, a criminal offense or misdemeanor, or a hunting or fishing violation were legally sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than two weeks, if three years have not passed since the term of imprisonment.
  • The manufacture, sale, carrying, possession, and import of the following are prohibited:
  1. “trick” firearms, designed so as to conceal their function (e.g., cane guns and belt-buckle pistols);
  2. any firearm equipped with a silencer and any rifle equipped with a spotlight;
  3. cartridges with .22 caliber, hollow-point bullets.

That is the essence. Numerous other provisions of the law relate to firearms manufacturers, importers, and dealers; to acquisition and carrying of firearms by police, military, and other official personnel; to the maximum fees which can be charged for permits (3 Reichsmark); to tourists bringing firearms into Germany; and to the fines and other penalties to be levied for violations.

The requirements of “trustworthiness” and of proof of need when obtaining a permit are troubling, but it should be noted that they were simply carried over from the 1928 law: they were not formulated by the National Socialists. Under the National Socialists these requirements were interpreted liberally: a person who did not fall into one of the prohibited categories listed above was considered trustworthy, and a statement such as, “I often carry sums of money,” was accepted as proof of need.

The prohibitions of spotlight-equipped rifles and hollow-point .22 caliber ammunition were based on considerations that the former were unsporting when used for hunting, and the latter were inhumane.

Now read the German firearms laws for yourself, either in the original German exactly as they were published by the German government in the Reichsgesetzblatt or in the complete English translations which are provided here. If you want to skip over most of the legal gobbledygook and go directly to the most pertinent part of the National Socialist Firearms Law — the part pertaining to the purchase, ownership, and carrying of firearms by private citizens — turn to page 35 (Part IV of the Law). Note, as already mentioned above, that two separate and distinct types of permits are referred to: a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), required only for purchasing a handgun; and a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein), required for carrying any firearm in public. Interestingly enough, as also mentioned above, a hunting license could take the place of both these permits.

When you have read the two laws mentioned here, you will understand that it was Hitler’s enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today. Then as now it was the Jews, not the National Socialists, who wanted the people’s right of self- defense restricted. You will understand that those who continue to make the claim that Hitler was a gun-grabber are either ignorant or dishonest. And you will understand that it was not until 1945, when the communist and democratic victors of the Second World War had installed occupation governments to rule over the conquered Germans that German citizens were finally and completely denied the right to armed self-defense.

%d bloggers like this: