“Let’s start with the first claimed example, that of the Soviet Union. Anyone who claims that an armed group of civilians could have stopped Stalin clearly has never opened a history book. First of all, the only reason the Bolsheviks were able to come to power in the first place was that they had access to guns. Armed civilians wouldn’t have solved the problem; they were the cause of it. Stalin, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had a minority of votes and were only able to seize power in a military coup. Second of all, armed citizens did try to stop them; it was called the Russian Civil War and lasted between 1917 and 1922. So to claim that armed civilians could have stopped the Bolsheviks is to be ignorant of the fact that they tried and failed to do so.”
And Mao:
“Communist China is also cited as an example of the dangers of gun control, despite the fact that it was the wide availability of guns that allowed the Communists to launch a rebellion in the first place. Nor would have armed resistance have prevented it. How do I know this? Because that?s exactly what happened and it failed to stop them. Between 1927 and 1949 the Chinese Civil War was fought with between 1.8 and 3.5 million casualties. If armies with experienced troops, tanks, planes etc could not stop Mao, what chance would some untrained and unorganised civilians have? Gun control becomes irrelevant when the main opposition to the government has been crushed in war.”
And Pol Pot:
"Pol Pot is the next figure cited, not because he introduced gun control but because he committed genocide. After much research I haven’t been able to find any evidence that the Khmer Rouge introduced any form of gun control or that it aided their rise to power. "
[quote]SexMachine wrote: #2 is absolute fantasy. The Weimar Republic had far stricter gun control laws than Nazi Germany. Hitler relaxed gun control laws. Hitler “completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition” and “the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.”
[/quote]
Did Hitler relax gun control laws for ALL Germans? No.
This article, written from a progressive viewpoint, does an excellent job of accidentally pointing out a number of things that Americans should oppose.
[quote]SexMachine wrote: #2 is absolute fantasy. The Weimar Republic had far stricter gun control laws than Nazi Germany. Hitler relaxed gun control laws. Hitler “completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition” and “the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.”
[/quote]
Did Hitler relax gun control laws for ALL Germans? No.
This article, written from a progressive viewpoint, does an excellent job of accidentally pointing out a number of things that Americans should oppose.
I’m actually strongly against gun control. But the revisionist crap people write only undermines gun rights advocates and makes them look ridiculous. Yes, Jews were barred from owning guns - along with many other regulations against them. But Jews comprised around 1% of the population of Germany and private gun ownership was very uncommon at the time. The idea that the small number of Jews who owned private guns prior to the ban could have organised any kind of resistance is absurd.
Just think if the Jewish Poles of 1943 were armed similar to the Americans of 2014; don’t dare make the mistake of thinking the challenge to the Nazis would’ve been a cakewalk.[/quote]
I’m familiar with the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. That was in a foreign country being invaded by Germany. The claim I was addressing - a claim that is repeatedly made - is that Hitler’s rise to power was predicated on his disarming his own populace. Further, claims are made that this was the first thing he did upon gaining power and the implication that his rise to power could have been prevented had the population been sufficiently armed. These claims are patently absurd and in fact the opposite is true.
Hitler’s rise to power was made possible through the use of a “militia” of privately armed civilians - namely, Ernst Rohm’s SA which at its height numbered some three million men. This “well regulated militia” was heavily armed and eventually became a threat to Hitler himself.
As I said, I’m not a gun control advocate by any means. But let’s not play make believe history. An armed populace can be just as much a danger as a tyrannical state.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Hey great bumper sticker…only Hitler…didn’t confiscate everyone’s guns…
[/quote]
Clever but misleading.
Hitler didn’t confiscate everyone’s guns but he was for gun control…just like the poster you posted says.
“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.
[/quote]
This quote refers to disarming the populace of a foreign nation, not his own people. Again, an armed populace can be just as dangerous as a tyrannical government.
Of course not. It was a selective action. Kinda like today. Modern gun control advocates surely don’t want to confiscate everyone’s guns, do they?
[/quote]
You’re right. Gun control advocates make the same kind of mistake that gun rights advocates make. Gun control advocates make the mistake of believing that safety lies in the state having most the guns. Gun rights advocates make the mistake that safety lies in the people having most the guns. In fact, both these positions are misguided. The fact is that gun ownership is equally unsafe whoever owns them. But as the genie is out of the bottle there’s not much anyone can do about it.
That private gun ownership is just as dangerous as state gun ownership.
Bogus. It might make a good sound byte but it doesn’t bear up under scrutiny.
[/quote]
Actually it does. How did Sulla gain power in Rome? And Pompey? Caesar? By controlling legions - ie, armed militias.
The tool that was used to gain power was the SA. It was the preeminent force in the country. Due to the Versailles restrictions the Wehrmacht was only 100,000 men strong. At its height the SA was thirty times larger than the Wehrmacht with groups, brigades and regiments throughout the entire country.
That’s a specious argument. It didn’t happen in Switzerland therefore it can’t happen anywhere.
Private gun ownership alone is not the critical factor. The critical factor is when political/religious factions organise armed civilians into a militia with which to threaten the state.
You mean like the Nazis? The Bolsheviks? And how did those groups gain power initially? Oh that’s right, many factors none of which included armed militias/paramilitary units.
Does correlation equal cause? How do those tyrannical regimes gain power initially? You’ve already admitted that before the Bolsheviks disarmed the peasants they gained power themselves through the use of arms. Tyrannical regimes don’t just suddenly appear and disarm everyone. They don’t gain power by threatening people with bananas.
