« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Hitler Gun Ban

By: TobyToons (Diary)  |  January 12th, 2013 at 08:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Hitler Gun Ban

“Hitler Gun Ban” seems to be trending as a search term lately. Try the search yourself. Once the results come up, start reading the articles. The ones from liberal bloggers all seem to say the same thing: Hitler did NOT ban guns, he only banned them from Jews and his political enemies.

What happened to the Jews and his political enemies? Looks like a gun ban to me. Of course he was going to let his political allies keep their guns or even increase the number of guns they own. Most of the blogs use that fact to propose that in fact it wasn’t a gun ban, but an increase in overall gun ownership. That’s one way to interpret it.

I’d bet those same bloggers would believe that the tyrant who’s system of governance hinged on the total control by the government, of every citizen’s life – was from the right side of the political spectrum.

“…for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value,-outside the State.”

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Chris

    Unless you live in DC or one of the territories, I’m not sure you can really compare your representation situation to that of the pre-revolutionary colonies. I don’t like Congress either, but the colonists didn’t revolt because they didn’t think their Members of Parliament were effective, they revolved (in part) because they didn’t have any representation at all. Even if you want to argue that Obama wishes he were a tyrant, he isn’t one. And I’ve honestly never heard gun control mentioned as a cause of the American Revolution. What are you referring to?

  • kipling

    Now, as to those “fruits” you mentioned. The list of failed candidates supported by the Republican establishement is much longer. Romney was such a candidate and he never had a shot – with or without Michelle Bachmann.

  • kipling

    I have to disagree with you on this one streiff. The militias of the time were quasi legal entities and very different from the National Guard of today. Although colonial legislatures often supported the militia, the govenors – appointed by the King – did not. Often the militias formed of their own accord and regulated their own internal affairs. The militias were also not well supported or supplied by the colonies. Many of the weapons and supplies provided to the militia came from private individuals rather than the state. The mixture of private and state arms were then stored in the armories. In some cases, even the artillery and artillery supplies came from private donors rather than the state. A good example is Henry Knox’s artillery company. The National Guard is a relatively recent invention created in the late 1800 to early 1900s. When the British went after the guns, it might not have been systematic gun control but the goal was to confiscate both the private and state weapons stored at the armory . They knew that confiscation would put an end to any resistance.