April 1st, 2013 by Editor
Lately the revisionist “historians” have been intolerable, telling us things like that Paul Revere didn’t make his famous midnight ride, that Betsy Ross didn’t sew the first flag, and that the founding fathers weren’t God-fearing Christians. These “revisions” denigrate our history, and downplay our revolutionary founding. But then, maybe they’re supposed to.
Now these “historians” have turned their attention to Nazi Germany arguing that one must steep oneself in the historical context of the Holocaust in order to understand, and therefore comment on, its significance. Those who study the Holocaust have seen this kind of protectionism before, which unfortunately keeps those who need to know their history from studying it, and therefore gleaning its meaning. Perhaps that too is the point.
For instance, the Huffington Post’s Adam Geller recently wrote,
In the months since the Newtown, Conn., school massacre, some gun rights supporters have repeatedly compared U.S. gun control efforts to Nazi restrictions on firearms, arguing that limiting weapons ownership could leave Americans defenseless against homegrown tyrants.
But some experts say that argument distorts a complex and contrary history. In reality, scholars say, Hitler loosened the tight gun laws that governed Germany after World War I, even as he barred Jews from owning weapons and moved to confiscate them.
Advocates who cite Hitler in the current U.S. debate overlook that Jews in 1930s Germany were a very small population, owned few guns before the Nazis took control, and lived under a dictatorship commanding overwhelming public support and military might, historians say. While it doesn’t fit neatly into the modern-day gun debate, they say, the truth is that for all Hitler’s unquestionably evil acts, his firearms laws likely made no difference in Jews’ very tenuous odds of survival.
…With the 1938 law [meaning the Nazi Weapons Law, passed on March 18, 1938, which, is the source of the U.S Gun Control Act of 1968], Nazis seized guns from Jewish homes. But few Jews owned guns and they composed just 2 percent of the population in a country that strongly backed Hitler. By the time the law passed, Jews were so marginalized and spread among so many cities, there was no possibility of them putting up meaningful resistance, even with guns, said Robert Gellately, a professor of history at Florida State University and author of “Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany.”
Am I reading this correctly? Do Geller, et al, mean to argue that while, yes, Hitler confiscated guns from the German Jews, it wouldn’t have mattered anyway because there were so few Jews, even fewer Jews with guns, and that they were scattered, so they would’ve been captured and thrown in death camps anyway??? That’s their argument against 2nd Amendment defenders’ argument that gun confiscation preceded every major 20th century genocide like those in China, Russia, Cambodia, and, yes, Germany? That’s what their brilliant think-tankers came up with? Well, I can sleep better at night knowing the gun grabbers aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer. Wait, or are we not allowed to have knives either? Read the rest of this entry »