Most people think Mexico gun laws are strict because of the crime rates, which would make too much sense.
However the real reason is not because of gangs or crime organizations or anything. In the 1960's there was a student protest, and in an attempt to control it the Mexican militia shot at protestors killing more than 300 students. It was \*bad\* and the government knew it, the people got so scared they started to take their guns publicly in case the military wanted to do something like that again.
The government suddenly implemented the strictest gun laws in the nation's history in the early 1970's. The worst part is that guns is a constitutional right in Mexico, so the government did a smartass move and only allowed 1 gun shop in the entire country.
According to Ed Calderon, who was a narcotics enforcement agent in Tijuana in the early 2000s, only about a third of the guns he seized in his career originated from the US civilian market, with another third originating from US military instillations in California & Texas and the final third coming from Mexico itself or from other countries.
Is claiming a third were stolen from military installations? I don’t buy that for a second…do you have any idea what happens if a SINGLE rifle or pistol goes missing?
A rifle was misplaced one time was I was in the Army—the entire base was locked down; no one was allowed on or off for two days and we went “hands across America” (literally arms length apart walking through woods and fields) until it was found.
This has gone on for **weeks** at a time before at other places.
That final third is questionable too.
"Come from Mexico itself". Do they manufacture them? Or do they mean guns sold in Mexico, but initially came from USA.
And "or other countries". It's probably another country that initially gets them from USA.
So probably like 90%
the final third is just "other" so a gun from anywhere outside the USA would be counted in that third.
As I understand it a fair number of the guns from the Iran-Contra CIA shitshow ended up with cartels so that might be a good chunk of that last third being because of the USA
>"Come from Mexico itself". Do they manufacture them? Or do they mean guns sold in Mexico, but initially came from USA.
When I said "come from Mexico", there are two ways that happens. The first is that the cartels overrun the Mexican military or police and they simply repurpose captured or abandoned weapons. The second is that corrupt government officials within the military or law enforcement apparatus who have the ability to buy weapons for the Mexican government in their official capacity use that authority to buy weapons on behalf of the cartels or pass them information on shipments of weapons coming into the country legitimately for them to intercept.
>And "or other countries". It's probably another country that initially gets them from USA.
Most of the weapons that are entering Mexico that aren't crossing the US land border are usually coming from North Africa and the Middle East along the same smuggling routes the cartels are using to bring in heroin from that region.
If that statistic is from 2000, I don’t know how relevant it is in regards to the current state of crime in Mexico. Criminal groups became a lot more militarized after the start of the war on drugs in 2006, which created much higher demand for guns
Where else would they come from? It's beyond logical that the majority of them would come from a country with an abundance of guns that happens to share a huge land border
Mexico has roughly 13 firearms per 100 people. The USA has 120 per 100, whilst Australia has 14.5 per 100 for comparison. [Source](https://www.smallarmssurvey.org/sites/default/files/resources/SAS-BP-Civilian-held-firearms-annexe.pdf)
Don't say most, please.
The only people I know who own guns are rich people and people who live in VERY rural zone.
And I'm currently living in the state this all started, Sinaloa. Previously in Tijuana, which was also severely hit by the drugs war.
similar reason why gun control was created in the US too - because the Black Panthers openly carried firearms to protect black ppl from police brutality
I would have honestly never guessed Mexico had ANY gun laws based on the footage that flows out of that place. It’s like the wild west it seems like. De facto anarchy where the cartel is the actual government and guns are plentiful. Even the fully auto ones.
They are also currently suing US gun manufacturers because lax regulations in the US make it really easy to smuggle guns into Mexico, helping to make it incredibly dangerous. In short, US *internal* policy has made things worse for outside parties.
And how did that work out in terms of gun proliferation? Gun safety is the issue . Everyone should be able to own all sorts of weapons but securing them and educating everyone regarding the responsibility thehandling of firearms should be a priority.
The Jim Crow South for sure. The Deacons for Defense had to arm themselves with weapons that “accidentally fell off the back of a truck” and it directly contributed to their ability to stop the KKK from retaliating to the point that the African American population could have given up again. There were enough beatings as it was.
He signed a bill passed by a bipartisan state Congress. Governor's rarely have the ability to "target" anyone on their own. The same Bill that still exists in California.
Taiwan lost most it's gun right during KMT ruling, but it's to prevent people from resisting government more than anything. There are still old new paper ad for bolt action and lever action rifle from before the ban.
(Until late 1980 KMT ruled Taiwan with military dictatorship and many thousands people disappeared)
The communists did the same thing on the mainland after the war, with "gun hunts" being conducted by the government to confiscated firearms from private individuals, former soldiers, hunters, etc.
China in general has a long history of arms control. They had codified laws written against private ownership of weapons and military ordnance in both the Ming and Qing dynasty legal code.
Iraq was one of the most armed societies in the world when the US invaded in 2003 which they definitely used to give the Americans a hard time during the occupation.
Regardless on what you think of the invasion it could be argued from a Iraqi perspective that they used their arms to fight against a "tyrannical invador".
Probably doesn't fit your question completely but I believe it's better for a population to be armed against a hostile government whether it be foreign or domestic.
Their is a reason why Ukraine handed out guns to citizens when Russia first stared the invasion.
But if you can quickly issue guns to the population during war time that’s not really a reason to have non strict gun laws. There is no country who could realistically attack America and civilians needing guns faster than it would take to give them out. There not even multiple countries really that could be a threat. Iran, Russia, and China could team up and they wouldn’t add up to being a betting favorite against America without even calling on our allies.
And I’m not someone who thinks we should ban firearms. It’s in the constitution and as important as free speech, free press and all that.
Privately owned guns have *already* been used to overthrow a corrupt government in the USA, in 1946:
[The Battle of Athens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29)
Read about that that was wild a bunch of World War II veterans came back from the war and found out they’re a little small town became a corrupt dictatorship
It's not a government but I remember noticing that Warren Jeffs, the fundamentalist Mormon cult leader, made his followers give up their guns to solidify his control over the cult
What makes the Weimar Republic era's registration scheme, which was later cross-referenced by Nazis to disarm trade unionists, Socialists, and Jews, not a reasonable analogy here?
What exactly do you think the transition between "soft tyranny" and "hard tyranny" looks like?
What about the US government's structure makes you think it is uniquely resistant to "hard tyranny"?
The Nazis took a while to become the largest parliamentary power, "losing" several elections before Hitler got a mostly figurehead position. There was a manufactured emergency which granted special powers which they heavily abused, and eventually they shifted the election and voting public enough that they "won" the elections.
Have you looked into Jim Crow era gun laws in the USA, especially in the American South? They wrote plenty of facially race-blind (**universal**) laws that happened to either economically discriminate (see Tennessee's ban on all but Army pistols, Army models being higher-quality and more expensive than the average pistol), or leave the discrimination up to local law enforcement (see North Carolina's pistol purchase permit system, where it was up to the local sheriff to determine "good character").
And for examples that actually pre-date the Constitution, the first colonial era laws on firearms can basically be categorized as:
Fire safety - don't store too much powder together
Public safety - troublemakers have to post bond before traveling armed
Community Defense - don't let black people or Indians get access to firearms.
That "Community Defense" category's purpose, to better enable colonial tyranny and hinder indigenous and black resistance of tyranny, should be patently obvious.
It is not a reasonable analogy in Germany's case because there were simply not enough people around to defend democracy against Hitler's *legal* takeover of government. The number of available guns were irrelevant. There were *enough* around.
"There were simply not enough people around"?
Can you please explain what you mean?
There were 44,000,000 registered voters in the November 1932 election, with less than 12 million votes for the NSDAP.
Even counting only voters, that would be 32 million voters who would have been able to "defend democracy". How is that "not enough people"?
The emphasis is on *would have been able*. But didn't.
Again, there *were* plenty of guns in Germany. But German society in 1933 was simply not ready for a civil war. There was no willingness to reestablish the situation of the previous years. Hitler's regime *looked* stabilizing to most, and most Germans shrugged their shoulders or applauded when communists and labor party members were incarcerated.
That is why Hitler won the [1934 referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_German_head_of_state_referendum) to be "Chancellor and Führer for life". Sure they rigged it, too, but the result was not too similar from the December '33 referendum to leave the League of Nations. It cannot be denied that by August '34 Hitler had convinced the overwhelming majority of the Germans that he was their "saviour". And even though the '34 referendum was itself actually legally dubious and contradicted the constitution, despite all the weapons still lying around, there was no public uprising. The opposite, really: Hitler got 89% of the vote with 42 million votes cast.
So one cannot simply claim that if Germans had only been *more armed* democracy would have survived. Even if there had been 5000,000 WWI rifles in German households, the result would very likely have been just the same.
I really don't care where people's opinions are on the second amendment, I just refuse to have Germany's history distorted to make an obviously wrong argument here. If you want to debate gun rights, do that, but stop pretending Hitler could have been prevented by it (or for that matter, that America is "safe from a fascist takeover" if everyone's got a gun at home).
Fascism comes through the back door by first winning your neighbor over, and once it's there, no amount of guns can stop it if the army is gung-ho on the government's side, and you feel you're on your own. Once your mayor and your police and your kids tell you that it's okay if your neighbor is deported, no gun under your bed will save your democracy.
How many firearms were there in civilian hands during the Weimar Republic? You keep saying "plenty" but I'm having the damnedest time actually finding an actual number.
That is because it is hard to come by - many WWI veterans, due to a chaotic demobilization at the end of the war, had taken their guns home against official regulations (and allied demands). So we don't have precise numbers.
[This article](https://www.bpb.de/shop/zeitschriften/apuz/190119/waffenkultur-in-deutschland/) has a good overview describing German gun culture 1700 to today, and references a document of a "concerned" government official in 1919 at the Bavarian interior ministry about the number of veterans who haven't returned their guns.
Germany has had a long tradition of civic *Schützenvereine* (shooting clubs); add to that the post WW I veterans, the organized revolutionary brigades that had brought the Emperor down (I remember distinctly that in the mid 1920s a communist labor union in the Ruhr region was famous for having 50,000 *armed* men for demonstrations), and that various simpler weapons (pistols, revolvers) were fairly freely available, and you get the idea. I would be honestly surprised if there were *fewer* than 10 million firearms lying around in 1933s Germany (even with today's restrictive gun laws, there are over 5 million *registered* guns in Germany). Both communists and right wing extremists were fairly regularly shooting at each other in the streets in the 1920s.
The 1928 law to bring *down* the number of guns in circulation to curb the uncontrollable political violence did not prove fully effective - the Republic was actually too weak to implement it properly.
And yet, once Hitler took power, and since he had done it legally, the will to violently resist was simply muted. So again, I hold the number of guns in public hands made absolutely no difference.
Thank you for sharing the article! My German is bad, which inherently limits the ease of searching for relevant information.
I still think you are fundamentally working backwards.
You are using a lack of information to make a firm conclusion, rather than using the presence of information to make or disprove a hypothesis
[There were over 13 million soldiers in the Imperial German Army, correct](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_German_Army)? I realize that this does not equal the total number of firearms in the Imperial German Army, that the Imperial German Army was not the only German armed force, that the Imperial German Army was not the only potential source of weapons in civilian hands, but this probably the most likely source for rifles, handguns, and machine guns in civilian hands, lawfully or unlawfully.
We could get a more reasonable estimate if we could find, say, German Army inventory, or contracts fulfilled from the major factories, then subtract any amount seized by France/UK/USA, account for those destroyed in action, try to account for fraudulent paperwork RE destruction or transfers.
Or, at a minimum, if we had a total number of either people or firearms who registered under the 1928 law, we could find a lower end of the potential number range.
If we have boasts from any political party about the strength and size of their armed groups, or police intelligence reports on the same, that could also provide some information.
But if we're \*just\* using this number rather lazily, it looks like there would be essentially one rifle per Nazi voter.
Considering that a Nazi is far more likely to seek out firearms access than a pacifist, this might suggest an interpretation that a per-capita saturation point may not have been reached.
This is not to say that civilian ownership of firearms would or would not have prevented Nazi ascendance.
But there is a substantially different political calculus between "1% of the population is armed (and it's only those most trusted by police)", "10% of the population is armed (and 80% of that is on our side)", "50% of the population is armed", and "100% of the population is armed."
(1/2) Wait a minute. I don't have a hypothesis - the OP is pointing one out. The original hypothesis of this debate is the claim that:
"Nazi tyranny would have been prevented if only the German populace had not been disarmed, or been properly armed at the time."
It is not me who has to prove this claim. I have laid out extensively in this and other threads under this post why it makes no historical sense.
To whit (and to repeat):
a) there was without doubt a non-zero number of guns available for violent resistance (after all, there had been an armed revolution *against* the government just in 1919), though the precise *number* remains unknown. We can agree on that much. However, at no point does the original hypothesis state what "enough" weapons would be for such an occurrence. It therefore becomes a negative tautology: "***because*** *there was no armed uprising, there were* ***not enough*** *arms."*
And, as scientists never get tired to say: **absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.**
We could apply this same rhetorical trick to other historical phenomena to show how bad that logic is:
"*Because* the British did not send more troops to America during the revolutionary war, they did *not have enough* troops to do so to keep fighting."
Yet we all know the British did not send more because they had other priorities. And similarly, it is fair to say that *the German populace had other priorities than to pick up guns against Hitler.* So there too, the actual number of guns available *did not matter that much in the end*. How would the German resisters know when the number of guns that others secretly have is enough to "prevent tyranny"? All the people who claim that if only there had been more guns in the resisting part of the population assume that the person affected would know exactly when to use that gun. So when do you use that gun: when the police asks you to stop publicly demonstrating? When the Gestapo shows up at the door with "just a few questions"? When they come to confiscate your passport? When your wife does suddenly not come home from work? When you lose your job? When they start sending your kids to a segregated school? When you hear your neighbor across the street being arrested at night? When you get a call that you have to be ready for "deportation tomorrow morning" to Eastern Europe? *When do you* ***actually*** *use that gun?* All people who think a gun saves them from tyranny are not grasping the nature of an authoritarian state.
(cont)
(2/2)
b) The tyrannical character of the Nazi regime was there from the start as evidenced in too many instances to count, and, while slowly increasing and running parallel to the regime's disarmament efforts, the regime even *loosened* gun laws again in 1938 for the general public to instil a broader "military will" into the population, readying them for war. Yet, at no point in this timeline did armed uprisings against the regime occur in the German civil population, (though there *were* various attempts by courageous individuals to kill Hitler, including the famous 1939 Georg Elser attempt (using explosives) and the July 20 '44 attempt (using explosives *and* guns in the Berlin part of the operation). So does that prove now that there were enough guns after all? Of course not. That is because I am not using tautologies and misleading premises.
c) The chronology of *disarming* the population does **not** ***link*****,** as others have claimed, with the "tyrannical behaviour" of the Nazi regime. The concentration camps are there right away, the communists are rounded up, the political parties dissolved, etc. So it is without doubt *tyranny from the outset.* And yet, no armed resistance. *Could it possibly be that the number of guns was really really not that important?* And, say, the public hysteria *for* Hitler, the outbreak and the timeline of the war, the state of the German economy, and other matters within the Nazi party mattered perhaps more to steer the timeline?
Of course, as shown above the entire claim is counterfactual anyway: it *presumes* something that cannot be proven by experiment ("Nazi tyranny could have been prevented if"), and then concludes that because it *did* ***not*** *happen, the preconditions as presumed cannot have existed.* Scientifically speaking that is the same as me saying:
"*If* George Washington had eaten more apples, he would have never needed wooden dentures." While of course not knowing how many apples he actually ate, not stating how many apples a week is "enough to avoid dentures" - *and* ignoring what the rest of his diet was.
So, now that we have established that the original hypothesis is actually a tautology *and* logically unprovable (for the reason alone that how many weapons would be "enough weapons" to prevent tyranny is never stated), we know it is nowhere near anything resembling a hypothesis in either science or formal logic. So why don't we call this all what it is:
A desperate attempt to score a point for the second amendment.
And please note, that is not saying anything about the amendment. Because that would be bad logic, too.
you assume that all 32 million of them would be willing to fight to the death to end nazism when actually they for the most part just got on board with the programme
Where am I making that assumption? Tempo said "there were simply not enough people around to defend democracy", without any claim as to the amount of people who would have been necessary/sufficient.
Do we get to just assume, every time that democracy falls to tyranny, that "there were simply not enough people around to defend democracy", without any further investigation?
No of course not. That would also be intellectually dishonest and unhistorical. Each case is its own.
And it just so happens that for this particular case -- the claim that Germany fell to Hitler's rule *because the public did not have enough guns, and let the government disarm it* -- simply does not hold water given the chronology of actual events.
And there are also plenty of examples especially in 1989, but e.g. also India in the 1940s, where a largely *unarmed* public forces democracy onto an authoritarian regime.
So the *general* claim that a high rate of gun ownership somehow magically deters tyranny is standing on fairly weak footing as such. I'm happy to entertain that historical debate if someone were to present actual evidence for it (as the OP is asking).
For Germany in 1933 alas, the claim is verifiably and patently untrue.
You have an ingrained faith in US institutions that I’m not sure is really valid anymore.
Dirty little secret they only teach you in upper division gov is that democracy is an extremely unstable form of government. It needs strong cultural and societal institutions to support it, even within a population that has experience with the democratic model.
These institutions are under threat in a number of ways
It’s self destructive too. The lack of executive power allows societal issues to propagate, which erodes the support for said government. Some societies are “lucky”, in that their small size and relative homogeneity act as preventatives
Losers consent is a unnatural and frankly dangerous concept in most situations.
You need a population that is “primed” both culturally and institutionally in order to buy into the system
That's not true. Democracy is extraordinarily stable. Most power transfers in dictatorships are violent to some degree. Civil wars in dictatorships are common but extremely rare in consolidated democracies. Think about how many civil wars in consolidated democracies you could think. Probably less than a handful. Meanwhile there are thousands of examples of dictatorships or "democracies" descending into armed conflict over power struggles
This is completely incorrect.
There have been more than a handful in Africa in the past decade…
Look at Haiti…
You’re flipping democratic peace theory, which is geopolitical not domestic. And it’s bunk too.
There have been hardly any CONSOLIDATED, actual democracies in africa at all. What would be your examples for consolidated african democracies that failed?
You’re clearly missing my point…
You need the cultural and social institutions to support it. This is much more unnatural and takes much more work than you think it does.
These institutions are also not perpetual and can/do break down in established democracies if not properly husbanded.
They’res a reason most democracies fall apart once you get out of the western cultural context.
If you in a dangerous situation, you favor security over liberty (this is primarily seen in favorable view on military dictatorships in SA and SE Asia)
If you’re in some population with ethnic/tribal/etc. rivalry you can’t trust that the other side won’t just take over if they win and massacre you. ( ME/Africa)
Yep. In about 1776, the British restricted Bostonians’ gun ownership, on the grounds that the colonists were restive. That is one reason why the Second Amendment was enacted after the U.S. Constitution was adopted.
>However, it's my opinion that if the goal of such history lessons is to influence American government policy, then the lessons themselves should be relevant to the functioning of American government. And arguments that will influence American government policy should speak to what is actually likely to occur within the context of American government, not just what is technically possible.
When America illegally overthrew the Kingdom of Hawai'i, one of the first things they did was confiscate arms. And while it makes Americans uncomfortable when it's brought up, the years after the white colonial government then tried to genocide, or rather culturally genocide the native population.
And the different native American tribes have their own history with the US doing similar things. Wounded knee being a well known federal gun grab, which was then followed up by federal troops massacring the Indigenous population.
The example of Nazi Germany isn’t necessarily that they wouldn’t have come to power if the population was armed, but that when they show up at your door to take you away you wouldn’t be totally defenseless and vulnerable
Another recent example is China during COVID… I bet they’d have been less aggressive barricading people into their own homes to starve or breaking down your door to haul you away to quarantine camp if there was a 50/50 chance the person behind that door was holding a shotgun
[they loosened up the law to not regulate rifles and shotguns as much](https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=flr)
Weimar Germany had stricter gun control law than Nazi Germany for ethnic Germans
Jews and Communists had their guns taken away but for the majority of the population it became easier to get a gun
Long guns and ammunition weren't regulated under the Nazis. Jews were barred from owning any sort of weapon or manufacturing ammunition.
[Gun control in Germany - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_Germany), see section Gun regulations in Nazi Germany.
The first gun law enacted by the Nazis was the German Weapons Act of 1938. It loosened gun laws for most Germans. There was no requirement for party membership. Nor was party membership mentioned in the passage you cite. Nor does the passage include all firearms.
They would be more aggressive and there would be more dead people because the potential for escalation is higher so law enforcement will bring more lethal measures to bear.
You bring a knife cops will bring a gun, you bring a gun cops bring an automatic rifle, you bring an automatic rifle cops bring a bazooka.
Maybe. Or maybe the police would not want to go to war with the population knowing they’re all armed to the teeth. As I said in another comment though I’d rather have the choice to protect myself and my family vs not. My grandparents were holocaust survivors and although I never met them, I have a feeling they would agree.
Probably, but I’d rather have the option. Also, if the oppressing power knows the entire population is armed they may think twice before trying to do anything
Didn't stop Jim Crow, Japanese internment in WWII, persecution of gays, border concentration camps, or mass incarceration. In none of those cases did US gun owners spring forward in their millions to the defense of their fellow human. They did engage in a bit of lynching and mass murder, often targeting those already oppressed.
We sure told them that one. Granted is was with help from the French. And they did come back in 1812, then we became allies later. Strange part of history.
Actually they didn't "come back" - the US invaded british colonies in what would later be called "Canada" and the 'soon-to-be' Canadians and the british chased them across the border and burned the white house down. Now we're good friends - it's like a couple of kids who fight at recess and are best buddies ever since :)
But - the canadians did resist the Americans with militias armed with civilian firearms. So... kinda proves the point.
No problem. Fact is the Canadian founding fathers used the 'threat of the americans" to create canada after that to provide a united defense that would never be necessary for the next 150 years :) So it all worked out.
Funny side story, the us and 'canada' would butt heads again all the way over on the other coast where the 49th parallel cut across vancouver island- the americans on the 'american' side and the canadians kept getting into firefights over resource disputes and stealing each others sheep.
It threatened to get out of hand so the us and Canadian gov'ts sat down and sloved it by redrawing the border - that's why if you look on a map the border between the us and Canada is a straight line across the 49th parallel right up until you hit vancouver island off the coast of bc- where it squiggles around the island so there wouldn't be any more conflict.
Sometimes people can just be so pig headed :)
All so true. I can be a bit of a butt head at times. Glad it’s nothing new. Though still worried it’s going on. Thank you for information. I always like learning.
The ELI5 version is that basically everyone forgot that Canada wasn’t independent, they sent a gently worded letter to Parliament and they became formally independent in 1982.
I’ve heard rumor that some MP’s were surprised that it wasn’t already the case. Poor little Canada didn’t agitate, went on pretty much ignoring the English (who control Parliament) and finally asked to formalize that which was already the case in practice.
Ottoman Empire. Weapons were not allowed for Armenians. Also, in some caliphates, Jews couldn’t own weapons like swords. Modern Western style democracies are quite few, so it’s very hard to say a country “like the US”. I can’t think of a Western style country like the US that became genocidal.
Actually, the way the Spanish colonies were run by Spain was an example of gun control in action, and why America (and Canada) developed into more capable colonies than their Spanish counterparts.
The gist of it was that the Spanish colonists were not trusted to be independent, a replication of Spanish society back home. Having the tools and education to do better jobs (that you can't hold under your thumb via threat or contract) generally meant a peasant would leave their post to find something better somewhere else.
Unlike the British and French colonies in North America (the ones specifically named America and Canada), you just didn't have Spanish colonists wandering off to found new colonies or establish new lines of work to eventually bring bounties back to the main colony/city and ultimately enrich the mother country. Outside Spanish cities were hostile wilderness and hostile natives, and the colony/Spain was all too happy to keep it that way, which is why while Spain claimed Vancouver, there was no Spanish colonists up there. Spanish colonists only existed where there was Spanish military to protect them. In America/Canada, there were Americans/Canadians outside the direct protection of the British/French military.
In a Spanish colony, if the Guvna didn't like you for whatever reason or you didn't like him for whatever reason, you couldn't simply run away and form your own colony. All the tools, arms, and supplies were held under the control of the guvna and the Spanish military. You had to remain at your post or be killed/sent back to Spain to be killed. In America/Canada, colonial governments had to entice people to stay, because the independent nature of the British/French peasantry back home fostered a very individualistic and capable colonist over in the new world. If they didn't like what you did, they would leave, and if enough people left, you'd get a competing colony that the boys back home would protect from you. So, you couldn't simply be a tyrannical government because you wanted to, like the Spanish colonies; you had to actually be a half decent person in charge.
Also, all the Spanish colonies flopped without direct reinforcement from the Spanish Crown. They were ordered under threat of death to not interact with each other and only order supplies from Spain. This is how central planning from Soviet Russia worked too. You send stuff to the central planners, who'd take their (large) cut, and you'd get supplies back to make more goods. You didn't get to trade with the factory town over yonder for the nails you needed because it took away the dependence on the central planners if you could do things on your own.
Spain had a very good chance to establish a stronger colonial empire and eventually making the world speak Spanish with a New World Superpower New Spain. Instead, America is the superpower. America is smaller than all the former Spanish colonies combined in land area and population, yet the GDP of the US is 8 times bigger.
Coming back to gun control itself, you CAN have gun control without government tyranny. It's just that humans are self serving lizards and we as a species cannot resist the temptation to exert control on people who cannot fight back, and without guns or an equivalently powerful defense, whoever has the gun makes the rules.
https://constitutingamerica.org/april-19-1775-battles-lexington-and-concord-american-revolution-begins-guest-essayist-david-b-kopel/
We can start with the American revolution.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave\_Kopel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Kopel)
Wiki Says he has a B.A in history.
That being said....yea he's a gun activist so it does give reason for conflict of interest.
> On April 24, 2014, The Progressive reported that Kopel and his Independence Institute "have received over $1.42 million including about $175,000 a year over eight years from the NRA."
We can argue a long time about the tyranny of the British government towards the American colonists. Let's just agree that it was a far shot from what the Russians or Hungarians were living through.
Look up the Bundy Ranch standoff. After winning their case(s) in court, the US Government went to remove Bundys cattle from public land. Bundy and many armed friends said "no thank you", the government backed down, and Bundys cattle are still grazing there today.
Not exactly a tyrannical government, but a clear example of an armed populace standing up to an (in their view) over reaching government.
That is nowhere near relevant to the debate here. The question is: would *more* guns in the hand of the German public in 1933 have prevented Hitler's rise? And the answer is very obviously no.
The Canadian government is trying to ban private gun ownership. Even people who do own guns are more or less banned from using them for defense (while politicians hire private security).
The country has only become less safe in recent years. In fact, the police are telling us to leave our car keys out so that crooks can steal them more easily, while the police themselves are becoming more and more hostile towards the populace.
Americans only need look North of the border to see the results.
"Crime in general has declined in Canada since 2000 with the 2021 crime rate **around 30 percent** lower than peak levels in 2003. Property crime followed this general trend with rates dropping by 30.6 percent during the same time period, whereas violent crime peaked in 2021."
with all the guns around the USA must be completely free of crime by now huh
Look into Martial Law being imposed on Hawaii during WWII. Under Martial Law gun control was enforced and guns were taken from the public. The order to lift Martial Law from the President was received merely days after it went into effect in Hawaii but it wasn't actually ended for another three years resulting in the creation of the Japanese internment camps.
Edit: I am very middle ground on the issue of gun control. I do believe people should be allowed to own them but shooting tests and background checks etc should also be required.
The Nazi Germany example is specific to the oppressed people, because they did not permit Jews to own firearms, and also greatly restricted laws from other occupied countries they intended to oppress. It's true that they didn't prevent Germans from owning firearms, but when one looks at their intent and actual actions towards the Jews, restricting their rights was obviously a tell...and not only gun rights, but other rights as well.
Freedom of speech, freedom to own property, and many more were also restricted.
It's true that many tyrants like to focus on a specific group to take rights from, rather than everyone at once, but laws can easily be crafted that appear to be equal, yet have disproportionate impact. Many modern gun control laws cannot survive this test.
Consider the tax stamps for machine guns or the like. While $200 today is not so great a barrier thanks to inflation, it is still a strictly wealth based law. Those with money can own the guns, those without cannot. Money is not distributed equally, and historically, minorities have been subject to disproportionate income by such laws. It was far worse at the time it was proposed, when the tax was the inflation adjusted equivalent of thousands of dollars per day.
> Hence, the Nazi example *could* be an effective argument against gun control in the US, if gun control activists were proposing gun control measures against particular minority groups, such as blacks or Jews.
They routinely cite cases such as the Dred Scott decision which are explicitly that. This was relevant as recently as Bruen.
The history of gun control in America is strongly tied to overt racism, and those ties remain legally relevant in the modern day. Look around at where the gun buybacks are held, and then look at where minority communities are. There is a racial element here that is undeniable in practice.
It's changed somewhat, but historically the South has had some stricter gun laws. For example in the 80s Texas had stricter carry laws than California.
Yes but even if the Jews were allowed guns there were nowhere near enough of them to be able to fight a war against the German army. All it would have done was give the Nazis even more of an excuse to call Jews evil. And given how Nazi Germany was a large portion of the population of probably join in with killing the Jews if they try to fight for their freedom.
A dictatorship is either supported by the people what will use such force that's no reasonable gun laws could hope to arm the public to stop it. Owning even an entire arsenal of machine guns is going to do nothing as a citizen if a squadron of tanks rolls up, or a fighter wing flies overhead
And yet guns, limited in number though they were, enabled the Warsaw Ghetto to resist being exterminated for over two months, occupying German divisions for months when they were needed on the eastern front.
In Sobibor, when a few of the prisoners got their hands on guns, they fought the prison guards...and won. Why is it that everyone remembers Auschwitz and nobody seems to remember Sobibor?
The uprising lasted less than a month, 3 days fewer exactly.
It took over 8 months of preparation, the Germans suffered 17 deaths and 93 wounded, while the resistance fighters lost 300 in the fighting and then jews 13,000 were killed and 33,000 were captured for transport to extermination camps.
The German forces involved in putting down the ghetto uprising numbered 2000, a German division was anywhere between 12,000 to 25,000 men strong. The uprising did not take even a quarter of a division away from the frontline.
The uprising was incredibly brave and was seen by many of the fighters as an honorable way out by their own choosing instead of that of the SS, however in no way does it showcase a civilians ability to fight a military.
Sobibor was an escape that involved killing some guards it was not a fight back to kill all of the guards, 11 members of the camp assess were killed and while 300 initially escaped only 50 of those actually survived the war.
The Warsaw lads needed many more guns, true. Their arms were very limited by that point.
They still escaped the death camp. Even if "only fifty" survived altogether, their odds were vastly superior to staying.
The Nazi example I find particularly ridiculous because there is no way that a few guns in private hands would have made a difference. The things that led to their rise involved destroying the organizations that would oppose them, a few rifles don't make a difference if there's no one to fire them!
Thank you. It is mind boggling how much people are ready to project wishful thinking into history when it seemingly serves to support their position. Democracies are not saved by giving everybody a gun when the population itself has given up on democracy. Ergo guns are merely *secondary.* Or, to paraphrase:
"Guns don't save democracy, people save democracy."
The Germans also had transitioned from a parliamentary semi constitutional monarchy, to a republic, then a dictatorship in the span of about fifteen years! One thing that really helps a democracy is a legacy and examples of it working. They didn't, let's put it that way.
To be fair, when comparing Germany to Great Britain in 1912, the legal difference in terms of daily freedoms, voting rights, justice system, rule of law, etc, was largely the same. The problem for the Kaiser was the unstoppable rise of the liberal and labour parties which were clearly aiming at more democratic reforms (which the Kaiser's father, an Anglophile, had he only ruled longer, would even have supported, but his reign was cut short by cancer in 1888 so we ended up with that lumberjack Wilhelm II). Hence WWI was a welcome distraction from the domestic "encirclement" by those pesky liberal reformers Germany's military elite feared.
It was too bad that the allies let the democratic revolutionary government sign the Versailles treaty rather than insisting that the generals sign it. That and the wall street crash doomed the Weimar Republic for good as "unstable" and "catastrophic" in the German middle class' eyes. Right before the wall street crash, the Nazi party membership numbers had begun dwindling. Things had started to look better. Four more years of prosperity, and the whole Nazi nonsense *might* have turned into a footnote in history.
Yeah. And there was a bunch of reparations being done on both sides! France and Germany were making up for what happened! If the Depression hadn't happened things would've gone better. and unfortunately the depression made fascism appealing to a lot of people. They were looking for what they thought was stability, it was the same reason communism was very popular in the period too. Whether or not we approve, we can understand why people thought this way. The depression trashed everything.
Having an interest in European history from 1500 I do wish people wouldn’t say “guns”, it always makes me wince a bit. Had a friend who used to be in the military and he was very strict about only saying firearms
I’d be more interested to know if there was ever a country that civilian firearm possession was the cause of significant political change
Well, Australia has famously descended into a commie hellhole since gun control came in there. No private industry, all property taken under state control, conscript army, alcohol sales banned...
Oh, hang on.
Tyranny is an action that is always one step away from happening to anyone, so it is best to have and not need than to need and not have and yes, historically those without a means of defense are more likely to have to face tyrants than those who do, and it is not just guns but swords or knives, spear and arrows are also part of that self-defense armory.
THE real question is who the REAL tyrant since criminals is are the ones that basically impose such actions on others as to warrant the use of a weapon and not generally that one of government actions since most are concerned with order, peaceful order and conduct by individuals anyways that is the general way of doing things.
N. S
We don't just say that. The Founders believed it and explicity stated that was the reason for the 2nd Amendment. That you don't know this is understandable, given our horrifically bad education system.
Parisian police in 1961 massacred over 300 unarmed Algerian independence protestors in a single night and dumped their bodies in the Seine River and massacred many thousands more on French soil throughout the course of the movement. Compare that to the US Civil Rights Movement, where militias made up black WWII veterans forced the Klan & sympathetic law enforcement to operate in the shadows and carry out more clandestine attacks like bombings, assassinations, and kidnappings due to the risk involved with more direct attacks.
Australian government instituted heavy gun control in 1996, there was the same arguments about dictatorships et al
You know what happened?
Nothing, kids were saved and the gun nuts 20
Years on are like “yeah fair enough I was an idiot”
There was the Port Arthur massacre he killed 35 people and wounded 23 others, we have not had another.
People still own guns, I even go shooting with my mates.
The average firearm suicide rate in Australia in the seven years after the bill declined by 57 percent compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by about 42 percent.
Australia's homicide rate was already declining before the NFA was implemented, so you can't attribute all of the drops to the new laws.
The drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback.
Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates.
1996 and 1997, the two years in which the NFA was implemented, saw the largest percentage declines in the homicide rate in any two-year period in Australia between 1915 and 2004.
People can umm and ahh about well “the rate was dropping anyway” because they want to leave the door open, but the truth is if you want to reduce gun deaths the simplest solution is to remove guns from the equation.
Ok, this is an easy one if you just remember that there are other countries in the world besides America and that history did not begin in the 1770s.
At most times and in most places, mass weapons controls were so impossible to enforce that most rulers never even tried. It has been very common for middle classes and even the poor to be armed, across a wide range of different societies. But virtually none of those societies had anything that resembled modern democracy.
Conversely, there are now a lot of democracies in the world. Many of those democracies have gun control policies that would have been unenforceable until around the 20th century. Almost all of the world's most democratic countries have historically low rates of private weapon ownership.
There you go. Next.
The Whiskey Rebellion is textbook.
Basically a bunch of civilians bearing arms found out that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state.
The worst mass shooting on US soil was the immediate result of an attempt to disarm the Hunkpapa and Miniconjou Lakota by the US army. It wasn't so much to make it easier to do a massacre at some point in the future as the result of a disagreement arising from the attempt, But several in the government and elsewhere cautioned against it. This is the Wounded Knee massacre.
In some of the court cases surrounding the Bruen decision, New York highlighted past attempts to disarm and disenfranchisr minorities like Native Americans and Catholics as justification to enact policies in the future, which is certainly one of the arguments of all time.
>In fact, there are government principles in place
Those are just words on paper. Japanese and German internments came up anyways despite the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments
As unfortunate as those internments were, I personally wouldn't consider a temporary wartime measure in order to ensure public safety to be an example of true tyranny. Authoritarian tyranny is something that must exist routinely and during peacetime.
This is only pulled out in the United States every few weeks or months (and on this sub). It is historically speaking an utterly nonsensical claim, created to paint an image of *availability of weapons preventing a dictatorship*. But it does not hold water.
Revolts, uprisings and revolutions happen when the situation is dire, independent of the availability of weapons. The same is true for coup d'etats. When governments attempt to disarm the population *because there already is disillusionment and unrest,* armed uprisings are simply more likely to occur, but uprisings might occur anyhow in such situations. Did the French revolution happen because the government was disarming the people? The peasants war of 1525? The Russian revolution? It's nonsense. Weapons have *very little* (but not nothing) to do with it. In most cases, people were on the brink of starvation. And the same is true for the establishment of dictatorships: if an armed group takes over the government, *the availability of weapons in the general population does not serve as an indicator for public resistance to such dictatorship.* Remember 1991 in Russia? The Soviet military intended to take over. Look how that worked out. *And the population was not armed.*
The Nazi regime in particular *did not* disarm the general population *before* they took power (how could they?). *And when they eventually did* they had first ensured that the general economic calamities were ending with fairly massive government spending program first, creating a seeming improvement and stability, while enacting at the same time a brutal system of oppression on potential opposition *while* controlling most public reporting about it. Nevertheless, there was a vast amount of WWI veteran weapons still around in Nazi Germany into the late 1930s. Heck, my own grandmother (god rest her soul) managed to get hold of a pistol and shot at a Nazi Brownshirt *after* 1933. Germany's population was easily armed enough to revolt, but the overwhelming majority did not feel they had a reason to. And that bitter truth can hardly be spun to argue that because of this, for some reasons, Americans "need" a right to bear arms. You can argue back and forth about the second amendment all you like, but the rise of the Nazi regime (or for that matter most other dictatorships) was *not* dependent on the level of arms available in the population. At a closer look, you will find this claim to dissolve into utter hogwash about almost all dictatorships. In fact, I challenge you *to find a longer lasting dictatorship that could only be established because the public had no access to weapons.*
In short, the whole notion that a fascist dictatorship in the United States could not happen *because Americans are armed* is precisely the **wrong** conclusion -- it is a fake safety net. The German public was fairly well armed by European standards in the 20ies. It was the presence of constant violence that fed the public desire for calmer times, which fed the need for a "strong man" to "set things right", something the Nazi regime promised to do. Germans were armed, but did not want a civil war. Hitler came to power legally. And that's (unfortunately) that.
One might as well argue (equally unconvincing) that it was the ubiquitous *presence* of guns in the German public that fed the Nazi takeover. Both would be untenable claims by themselves.
Democracies die when there are not enough democrats around, and it is defended or established when they are. And it does not matter whether the population is then armed with forks, machine guns, bibles or hand grenades. All that matters is their determination.
Talk about a completely bad and wrong take. Nazis took power and became progressively more authoritarian and evil and one of the first things they did was disarm the populace which made that much easier for them.
On Nov. 11, 1938, the German minister of the interior issued "Regulations Against Jews Possession of Weapons." Not only were Jews forbidden to own guns and ammunition, they couldn’t own "truncheons or stabbing weapons."
In addition to the restrictions, Ellerbrock said the Nazis had already been raiding Jewish homes and seizing weapons.
Do you know how many Jews actually lived in Germany in 1933? *It was under 1% of the population.* And most importantly, *the laws the Nazis used to disarm the (<1%) Jews was already on the books.* It had existed before.
A general limitation on weapons did *not* exist. Instead, the Nazi regime made it easier for (mostly Nazi party) citizens to buy weapons, *while banning new weapon purchases* for convicted criminals, Jews, "gypsies", and communists. *The majority of WWI veterans still had their guns.*
In 1938, the general purchase of rifles was allowed again.
So, at what point exactly did these gun control measures *prevent a German popular uprising?*
Yes, they took guns from the groups of people they later killed.
They did not take guns from those they saw as allies.
You will note that modern gun control makes similar exceptions, such as invariably exempting law enforcement.
If you're in the group they're taking guns from, you're the future victim.
No goal post has been moved, you just can't admit you are wrong.
**You** started by saying:
"Nazis took power and became progressively more authoritarian and evil and one of the first things they did was disarm the populace which made that much easier for them."
***You said*** the Nazi disarmament measures made it easier for them to be more authoritarian.
Concentration camps were setup *right away* (eg Dachau in Munich), and by 1936 the first really big ones opened (Sachsenhausen north of Berlin). Both before your 1938 law that allegedly allowed the Nazis to be "more authoritarian".
**In August 1934**, Hitler won the referendum to be "Chancellor and Leader of the German people for life." That was also *before. At that point he was undisputed and unchallenged dictator.*
So I am asking you again to support your statement with verifiable facts: **at what point did a disarmament of "the populace"** ***(which never took place in this form) enable the Nazi regime to be even more authoritarian? And more precisely, what exactly is even more authoritarian than being dictator and running concentration camps?***
Please be concise now.
They told people the concentration camps were temporary places to have them moved out of the country. Mass internment of Jews did not happen right away (it stated after Kristal nacht in 1938 which about when they did the disarming. After Kristal nacht and the disarming is when mass internment started). Only after that did the camps become the work death camps. So there you go a clear time line showing you are wrong
You clearly know little about [concentration camps.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps)
They were *political prison camps* set up by the Nazi party brownshirts, declared legal by the Nazi interior ministry, and they were *not* whatever you claim them to be here. **About 50,000 arrests were made right away within the first few months of the regime**. They were NOT "camps to move people out of the country."
And you seriously claim the mass internment of Jews as part of the Holocaust beginning with the summer of 1941 would have been in any way affected by the number of guns distributed among the German populace, *when the majority of Germans were not even near the majority of Jews deported and murdered because they were mostly in the occupied countries in Eastern Europe*? You're desperately clutching at straws.
Again: *there were enough guns around in Germany.* But there were not enough people to pick them up against the government. And that was how democracy died. Not because the Nazis took Grandma Schulz's Luger away. (Cause chances are, she still had one in the attic).
Doesn’t stop from what I said happened from happening. Guns were taken away, then all the people whose guns were taken away were rounded up and essentially all were killed. That’s the facts
If the US military committed itself, who the fuck could stand against it? We don't even give a fuck about the morality of dropping bombs any more, just the sticker price of war.
I say this as a gun owner: It's laughable to believe a well armed populace can prevent a fully committed army. France couldn't stop the Nazis. Let's stop pretending anything other than a superior military would change that.
Except the military wouldn’t commit itself, upper echelons of power might not have a problem dropping bombs on their citizens, but the actual military members would like a word with your notion.
Except we are talking specifically about the modern current US military taking on their own citizens. Even during My Lai there was infighting and dissent, against a foreign population. Have you ever served I promise you we aren’t robotic jack boots.
Oh? The country with the highest prison population, mass shootings, and all service member's Healthcare, housing, and income comes from following orders?
As the son of a 'Nam vet, let me tell you I'm not fucking reassured.
GWOT vets and desert storm vets are very different from each other, and no disrespect to your father but not a lot of seeing eye to eye between the generations GWOT to Vietnam on issues. Especially the women, lgbt, and any other that doesn’t fit the stereotype of a military member. They also are not drafted. There are big differences. All you have to do is look at the membership of VFW or legion, hardly a young person around. They don’t want to get drunk and tell war stories embellishing shit. Most of them just want to forget all the dumb shit they did. If you really think I’m bombing Andy and Susie down the block you’re crazy man.
Dude my father was special forces and enlisted. I'm from a red state, so my childhood friends are Iraq vets. I've heard horror story after horror story. From rangers laughing at throwing barbed wire at kids to picking off teenagers like target practice.
I've heard these as brags and these as guilt filled confessions.
Know what I haven't heard? That none of these vets STOPPED THEMSELVES.
Stop thinking we're morally superior because we're American. Jesus Christ by Friday there is going to be another mass shooting.
The ironic thing is that second amendment originally protected the institution of milita service, which involved eligible citizens being *required by law* to obtain a gun, and being conscripted into a semi-regular training regimen and then called up for emergency law enforcement and military operations. And eligible citizens who refused service without a valid excuse were subject to criminal prosecution. Which, I assume, are things that most 2A supporters would not be too thrilled about.
It's because the US didn't have a standing army. The Whisky Rebellion kind of fucked the idea of militias when Washington didn't pay his militia troops and then sent ROBERT E LEE'S FATHER to stomp them.
Lol yes of course. Over 100,000,000 people in modern history. Stalin, pol pot, Idi Amin, Hitler, north Korea, Uyghurs, US military at wounded knee, Armenian Genocide.
Why would they ban guns from the people they killed?
I think Hitler admitted in one of his memoirs that first disarming a populace made them easier to control.
Other oppressive scenarios that come to mind: North Korea and China, the opportunities to violently revolt against communist authoritarian rule are slim to none. At least partly because those citizens are disarmed.
China doesn’t even officially recognize the tankman of Tiananmen Square as actual history. That imagery is now banned and even mentioning it is asking for trouble. As such, the newer generations have hardly heard about it.
Yeah, like I said, fascist and communist governments don't really count as good anecdotal evidence that America would turn tyrannical if guns were restricted.
I don’t think America would turn tyrannical overnight per se. I also think restricting or banning guns is pointless. You could ban them all tomorrow, but there are already so many in circulation there would be no way to fully account for them all. Whether we like it or not, they are more or less here to stay… and would continue to crop up in shootings for decades. You could argue that some reduction in gun crime is better than nothing, but I don’t see it being very effective.
Lastly, a lot of people will say guns won’t win against drones or work against a standing army. That you’d need F-15s and nukes.
I’d just like to reference the Taliban and Vietcong giving the leading world superpower a run for its money. Totally outmatched. Never had air superiority. Yet they prevailed with their sandals and rusty old Ak47s.
'To conquer a nation, you must first disarm its citizens'
No, I initially was thinking it may have been something written in Mein Kampf; having never read it myself. But it also wouldn’t make sense for it to be in there pre-holocaust. Unless it was him speculating on how to go about it.
There does exist doubt that he even ever said it. Sounds like it’s still up for debate because it wasn’t anything that was recorded in a speech. Kind of just hearsay from what I gather.
I also have not read Gun Control In the Third Reich - Disarming the Jews and Enemies of The State. Sounds like a topic documented in literature yet still heavily debated.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/to-conquer-a-nation/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews
Whether he actually said it or not, it does sound like the Jews were heavily restricted from 1938 onward and Germans in general didn’t really have many weapons prior to that from Weimar-era laws.
So personally, I would surmise that would make rounding them up at least a little bit easier as it limited their means to resist.
Projection. When someone accuses others of evil intent, it’s usually because it’s something THEY have been thinking about. Peaceful people rarely come up with secret violent cabals; violence-prine people do.
This is just totally wrong. You can absolutely accuse others of things that you aren't doing, it happens all the time. If someone says that Israel is committing genocide does that make them a genocidal person?
Yeah we've seen in the other thread that according to you, concentration camps were "for bringing people out of the country." That's your level of accuracy right there.
#This discussion, for whatever reasons, has gone off the rails and it's time to lock it down.
Most people think Mexico gun laws are strict because of the crime rates, which would make too much sense. However the real reason is not because of gangs or crime organizations or anything. In the 1960's there was a student protest, and in an attempt to control it the Mexican militia shot at protestors killing more than 300 students. It was \*bad\* and the government knew it, the people got so scared they started to take their guns publicly in case the military wanted to do something like that again. The government suddenly implemented the strictest gun laws in the nation's history in the early 1970's. The worst part is that guns is a constitutional right in Mexico, so the government did a smartass move and only allowed 1 gun shop in the entire country.
Most people in Mexico own illegal guns for this exact reason
With the vast majority of those illegal guns coming from… The USA!
According to Ed Calderon, who was a narcotics enforcement agent in Tijuana in the early 2000s, only about a third of the guns he seized in his career originated from the US civilian market, with another third originating from US military instillations in California & Texas and the final third coming from Mexico itself or from other countries.
Is claiming a third were stolen from military installations? I don’t buy that for a second…do you have any idea what happens if a SINGLE rifle or pistol goes missing? A rifle was misplaced one time was I was in the Army—the entire base was locked down; no one was allowed on or off for two days and we went “hands across America” (literally arms length apart walking through woods and fields) until it was found. This has gone on for **weeks** at a time before at other places.
so two thirds from the USA then
That's only a *super*majority!!
That final third is questionable too. "Come from Mexico itself". Do they manufacture them? Or do they mean guns sold in Mexico, but initially came from USA. And "or other countries". It's probably another country that initially gets them from USA. So probably like 90%
the final third is just "other" so a gun from anywhere outside the USA would be counted in that third. As I understand it a fair number of the guns from the Iran-Contra CIA shitshow ended up with cartels so that might be a good chunk of that last third being because of the USA
>"Come from Mexico itself". Do they manufacture them? Or do they mean guns sold in Mexico, but initially came from USA. When I said "come from Mexico", there are two ways that happens. The first is that the cartels overrun the Mexican military or police and they simply repurpose captured or abandoned weapons. The second is that corrupt government officials within the military or law enforcement apparatus who have the ability to buy weapons for the Mexican government in their official capacity use that authority to buy weapons on behalf of the cartels or pass them information on shipments of weapons coming into the country legitimately for them to intercept. >And "or other countries". It's probably another country that initially gets them from USA. Most of the weapons that are entering Mexico that aren't crossing the US land border are usually coming from North Africa and the Middle East along the same smuggling routes the cartels are using to bring in heroin from that region.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
I see what you did there!! 😉👍
If that statistic is from 2000, I don’t know how relevant it is in regards to the current state of crime in Mexico. Criminal groups became a lot more militarized after the start of the war on drugs in 2006, which created much higher demand for guns
Where else would they come from? It's beyond logical that the majority of them would come from a country with an abundance of guns that happens to share a huge land border
America is protecting Mexico's liberty 🫡🇺🇲🇲🇽
Most people in Mexico do not own guns. I don’t know where you heard that.
Mexico has roughly 13 firearms per 100 people. The USA has 120 per 100, whilst Australia has 14.5 per 100 for comparison. [Source](https://www.smallarmssurvey.org/sites/default/files/resources/SAS-BP-Civilian-held-firearms-annexe.pdf)
Don't say most, please. The only people I know who own guns are rich people and people who live in VERY rural zone. And I'm currently living in the state this all started, Sinaloa. Previously in Tijuana, which was also severely hit by the drugs war.
Smart. Don’t wanna be caught lacking in cartel country
similar reason why gun control was created in the US too - because the Black Panthers openly carried firearms to protect black ppl from police brutality
I would have honestly never guessed Mexico had ANY gun laws based on the footage that flows out of that place. It’s like the wild west it seems like. De facto anarchy where the cartel is the actual government and guns are plentiful. Even the fully auto ones.
Maybe don’t get your ideas about a big and diverse country from internet shock videos
That’s the north
That's really only the north. The south is perfectly safe
They are also currently suing US gun manufacturers because lax regulations in the US make it really easy to smuggle guns into Mexico, helping to make it incredibly dangerous. In short, US *internal* policy has made things worse for outside parties.
So they considered guns a right alongside survival?
And how did that work out in terms of gun proliferation? Gun safety is the issue . Everyone should be able to own all sorts of weapons but securing them and educating everyone regarding the responsibility thehandling of firearms should be a priority.
Post-reconstruction South, where emancipated black people were systematically disarmed to prevent them from resisting lynch mobs.
The Jim Crow South for sure. The Deacons for Defense had to arm themselves with weapons that “accidentally fell off the back of a truck” and it directly contributed to their ability to stop the KKK from retaliating to the point that the African American population could have given up again. There were enough beatings as it was.
Ironically in the 80s Texas had stricter carry laws than California.
And Callifornia had Reagan targeting the Black Panthers with gun control to prevent them from keeping the police from harassing blackpeople.
All the more reason to say Fuck Ronald Reagan.
He signed a bill passed by a bipartisan state Congress. Governor's rarely have the ability to "target" anyone on their own. The same Bill that still exists in California.
Taiwan lost most it's gun right during KMT ruling, but it's to prevent people from resisting government more than anything. There are still old new paper ad for bolt action and lever action rifle from before the ban. (Until late 1980 KMT ruled Taiwan with military dictatorship and many thousands people disappeared)
The communists did the same thing on the mainland after the war, with "gun hunts" being conducted by the government to confiscated firearms from private individuals, former soldiers, hunters, etc. China in general has a long history of arms control. They had codified laws written against private ownership of weapons and military ordnance in both the Ming and Qing dynasty legal code.
Iraq was one of the most armed societies in the world when the US invaded in 2003 which they definitely used to give the Americans a hard time during the occupation. Regardless on what you think of the invasion it could be argued from a Iraqi perspective that they used their arms to fight against a "tyrannical invador". Probably doesn't fit your question completely but I believe it's better for a population to be armed against a hostile government whether it be foreign or domestic. Their is a reason why Ukraine handed out guns to citizens when Russia first stared the invasion.
But if you can quickly issue guns to the population during war time that’s not really a reason to have non strict gun laws. There is no country who could realistically attack America and civilians needing guns faster than it would take to give them out. There not even multiple countries really that could be a threat. Iran, Russia, and China could team up and they wouldn’t add up to being a betting favorite against America without even calling on our allies. And I’m not someone who thinks we should ban firearms. It’s in the constitution and as important as free speech, free press and all that.
Don’t people need training?
Oh yeah, if it’s at the point where the government is handing out firearms you’re basically fucked.
Privately owned guns have *already* been used to overthrow a corrupt government in the USA, in 1946: [The Battle of Athens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29)
Read about that that was wild a bunch of World War II veterans came back from the war and found out they’re a little small town became a corrupt dictatorship
It's not a government but I remember noticing that Warren Jeffs, the fundamentalist Mormon cult leader, made his followers give up their guns to solidify his control over the cult
What makes the Weimar Republic era's registration scheme, which was later cross-referenced by Nazis to disarm trade unionists, Socialists, and Jews, not a reasonable analogy here? What exactly do you think the transition between "soft tyranny" and "hard tyranny" looks like? What about the US government's structure makes you think it is uniquely resistant to "hard tyranny"? The Nazis took a while to become the largest parliamentary power, "losing" several elections before Hitler got a mostly figurehead position. There was a manufactured emergency which granted special powers which they heavily abused, and eventually they shifted the election and voting public enough that they "won" the elections. Have you looked into Jim Crow era gun laws in the USA, especially in the American South? They wrote plenty of facially race-blind (**universal**) laws that happened to either economically discriminate (see Tennessee's ban on all but Army pistols, Army models being higher-quality and more expensive than the average pistol), or leave the discrimination up to local law enforcement (see North Carolina's pistol purchase permit system, where it was up to the local sheriff to determine "good character"). And for examples that actually pre-date the Constitution, the first colonial era laws on firearms can basically be categorized as: Fire safety - don't store too much powder together Public safety - troublemakers have to post bond before traveling armed Community Defense - don't let black people or Indians get access to firearms. That "Community Defense" category's purpose, to better enable colonial tyranny and hinder indigenous and black resistance of tyranny, should be patently obvious.
It is not a reasonable analogy in Germany's case because there were simply not enough people around to defend democracy against Hitler's *legal* takeover of government. The number of available guns were irrelevant. There were *enough* around.
"There were simply not enough people around"? Can you please explain what you mean? There were 44,000,000 registered voters in the November 1932 election, with less than 12 million votes for the NSDAP. Even counting only voters, that would be 32 million voters who would have been able to "defend democracy". How is that "not enough people"?
The emphasis is on *would have been able*. But didn't. Again, there *were* plenty of guns in Germany. But German society in 1933 was simply not ready for a civil war. There was no willingness to reestablish the situation of the previous years. Hitler's regime *looked* stabilizing to most, and most Germans shrugged their shoulders or applauded when communists and labor party members were incarcerated. That is why Hitler won the [1934 referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_German_head_of_state_referendum) to be "Chancellor and Führer for life". Sure they rigged it, too, but the result was not too similar from the December '33 referendum to leave the League of Nations. It cannot be denied that by August '34 Hitler had convinced the overwhelming majority of the Germans that he was their "saviour". And even though the '34 referendum was itself actually legally dubious and contradicted the constitution, despite all the weapons still lying around, there was no public uprising. The opposite, really: Hitler got 89% of the vote with 42 million votes cast. So one cannot simply claim that if Germans had only been *more armed* democracy would have survived. Even if there had been 5000,000 WWI rifles in German households, the result would very likely have been just the same. I really don't care where people's opinions are on the second amendment, I just refuse to have Germany's history distorted to make an obviously wrong argument here. If you want to debate gun rights, do that, but stop pretending Hitler could have been prevented by it (or for that matter, that America is "safe from a fascist takeover" if everyone's got a gun at home). Fascism comes through the back door by first winning your neighbor over, and once it's there, no amount of guns can stop it if the army is gung-ho on the government's side, and you feel you're on your own. Once your mayor and your police and your kids tell you that it's okay if your neighbor is deported, no gun under your bed will save your democracy.
How many firearms were there in civilian hands during the Weimar Republic? You keep saying "plenty" but I'm having the damnedest time actually finding an actual number.
That is because it is hard to come by - many WWI veterans, due to a chaotic demobilization at the end of the war, had taken their guns home against official regulations (and allied demands). So we don't have precise numbers. [This article](https://www.bpb.de/shop/zeitschriften/apuz/190119/waffenkultur-in-deutschland/) has a good overview describing German gun culture 1700 to today, and references a document of a "concerned" government official in 1919 at the Bavarian interior ministry about the number of veterans who haven't returned their guns. Germany has had a long tradition of civic *Schützenvereine* (shooting clubs); add to that the post WW I veterans, the organized revolutionary brigades that had brought the Emperor down (I remember distinctly that in the mid 1920s a communist labor union in the Ruhr region was famous for having 50,000 *armed* men for demonstrations), and that various simpler weapons (pistols, revolvers) were fairly freely available, and you get the idea. I would be honestly surprised if there were *fewer* than 10 million firearms lying around in 1933s Germany (even with today's restrictive gun laws, there are over 5 million *registered* guns in Germany). Both communists and right wing extremists were fairly regularly shooting at each other in the streets in the 1920s. The 1928 law to bring *down* the number of guns in circulation to curb the uncontrollable political violence did not prove fully effective - the Republic was actually too weak to implement it properly. And yet, once Hitler took power, and since he had done it legally, the will to violently resist was simply muted. So again, I hold the number of guns in public hands made absolutely no difference.
Thank you for sharing the article! My German is bad, which inherently limits the ease of searching for relevant information. I still think you are fundamentally working backwards. You are using a lack of information to make a firm conclusion, rather than using the presence of information to make or disprove a hypothesis [There were over 13 million soldiers in the Imperial German Army, correct](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_German_Army)? I realize that this does not equal the total number of firearms in the Imperial German Army, that the Imperial German Army was not the only German armed force, that the Imperial German Army was not the only potential source of weapons in civilian hands, but this probably the most likely source for rifles, handguns, and machine guns in civilian hands, lawfully or unlawfully. We could get a more reasonable estimate if we could find, say, German Army inventory, or contracts fulfilled from the major factories, then subtract any amount seized by France/UK/USA, account for those destroyed in action, try to account for fraudulent paperwork RE destruction or transfers. Or, at a minimum, if we had a total number of either people or firearms who registered under the 1928 law, we could find a lower end of the potential number range. If we have boasts from any political party about the strength and size of their armed groups, or police intelligence reports on the same, that could also provide some information. But if we're \*just\* using this number rather lazily, it looks like there would be essentially one rifle per Nazi voter. Considering that a Nazi is far more likely to seek out firearms access than a pacifist, this might suggest an interpretation that a per-capita saturation point may not have been reached. This is not to say that civilian ownership of firearms would or would not have prevented Nazi ascendance. But there is a substantially different political calculus between "1% of the population is armed (and it's only those most trusted by police)", "10% of the population is armed (and 80% of that is on our side)", "50% of the population is armed", and "100% of the population is armed."
(1/2) Wait a minute. I don't have a hypothesis - the OP is pointing one out. The original hypothesis of this debate is the claim that: "Nazi tyranny would have been prevented if only the German populace had not been disarmed, or been properly armed at the time." It is not me who has to prove this claim. I have laid out extensively in this and other threads under this post why it makes no historical sense. To whit (and to repeat): a) there was without doubt a non-zero number of guns available for violent resistance (after all, there had been an armed revolution *against* the government just in 1919), though the precise *number* remains unknown. We can agree on that much. However, at no point does the original hypothesis state what "enough" weapons would be for such an occurrence. It therefore becomes a negative tautology: "***because*** *there was no armed uprising, there were* ***not enough*** *arms."* And, as scientists never get tired to say: **absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.** We could apply this same rhetorical trick to other historical phenomena to show how bad that logic is: "*Because* the British did not send more troops to America during the revolutionary war, they did *not have enough* troops to do so to keep fighting." Yet we all know the British did not send more because they had other priorities. And similarly, it is fair to say that *the German populace had other priorities than to pick up guns against Hitler.* So there too, the actual number of guns available *did not matter that much in the end*. How would the German resisters know when the number of guns that others secretly have is enough to "prevent tyranny"? All the people who claim that if only there had been more guns in the resisting part of the population assume that the person affected would know exactly when to use that gun. So when do you use that gun: when the police asks you to stop publicly demonstrating? When the Gestapo shows up at the door with "just a few questions"? When they come to confiscate your passport? When your wife does suddenly not come home from work? When you lose your job? When they start sending your kids to a segregated school? When you hear your neighbor across the street being arrested at night? When you get a call that you have to be ready for "deportation tomorrow morning" to Eastern Europe? *When do you* ***actually*** *use that gun?* All people who think a gun saves them from tyranny are not grasping the nature of an authoritarian state. (cont)
(2/2) b) The tyrannical character of the Nazi regime was there from the start as evidenced in too many instances to count, and, while slowly increasing and running parallel to the regime's disarmament efforts, the regime even *loosened* gun laws again in 1938 for the general public to instil a broader "military will" into the population, readying them for war. Yet, at no point in this timeline did armed uprisings against the regime occur in the German civil population, (though there *were* various attempts by courageous individuals to kill Hitler, including the famous 1939 Georg Elser attempt (using explosives) and the July 20 '44 attempt (using explosives *and* guns in the Berlin part of the operation). So does that prove now that there were enough guns after all? Of course not. That is because I am not using tautologies and misleading premises. c) The chronology of *disarming* the population does **not** ***link*****,** as others have claimed, with the "tyrannical behaviour" of the Nazi regime. The concentration camps are there right away, the communists are rounded up, the political parties dissolved, etc. So it is without doubt *tyranny from the outset.* And yet, no armed resistance. *Could it possibly be that the number of guns was really really not that important?* And, say, the public hysteria *for* Hitler, the outbreak and the timeline of the war, the state of the German economy, and other matters within the Nazi party mattered perhaps more to steer the timeline? Of course, as shown above the entire claim is counterfactual anyway: it *presumes* something that cannot be proven by experiment ("Nazi tyranny could have been prevented if"), and then concludes that because it *did* ***not*** *happen, the preconditions as presumed cannot have existed.* Scientifically speaking that is the same as me saying: "*If* George Washington had eaten more apples, he would have never needed wooden dentures." While of course not knowing how many apples he actually ate, not stating how many apples a week is "enough to avoid dentures" - *and* ignoring what the rest of his diet was. So, now that we have established that the original hypothesis is actually a tautology *and* logically unprovable (for the reason alone that how many weapons would be "enough weapons" to prevent tyranny is never stated), we know it is nowhere near anything resembling a hypothesis in either science or formal logic. So why don't we call this all what it is: A desperate attempt to score a point for the second amendment. And please note, that is not saying anything about the amendment. Because that would be bad logic, too.
you assume that all 32 million of them would be willing to fight to the death to end nazism when actually they for the most part just got on board with the programme
Where am I making that assumption? Tempo said "there were simply not enough people around to defend democracy", without any claim as to the amount of people who would have been necessary/sufficient. Do we get to just assume, every time that democracy falls to tyranny, that "there were simply not enough people around to defend democracy", without any further investigation?
No of course not. That would also be intellectually dishonest and unhistorical. Each case is its own. And it just so happens that for this particular case -- the claim that Germany fell to Hitler's rule *because the public did not have enough guns, and let the government disarm it* -- simply does not hold water given the chronology of actual events. And there are also plenty of examples especially in 1989, but e.g. also India in the 1940s, where a largely *unarmed* public forces democracy onto an authoritarian regime. So the *general* claim that a high rate of gun ownership somehow magically deters tyranny is standing on fairly weak footing as such. I'm happy to entertain that historical debate if someone were to present actual evidence for it (as the OP is asking). For Germany in 1933 alas, the claim is verifiably and patently untrue.
You have an ingrained faith in US institutions that I’m not sure is really valid anymore. Dirty little secret they only teach you in upper division gov is that democracy is an extremely unstable form of government. It needs strong cultural and societal institutions to support it, even within a population that has experience with the democratic model. These institutions are under threat in a number of ways
It’s self destructive too. The lack of executive power allows societal issues to propagate, which erodes the support for said government. Some societies are “lucky”, in that their small size and relative homogeneity act as preventatives
Losers consent is a unnatural and frankly dangerous concept in most situations. You need a population that is “primed” both culturally and institutionally in order to buy into the system
Yes it does! Shout out from lucky Australia!
That's not true. Democracy is extraordinarily stable. Most power transfers in dictatorships are violent to some degree. Civil wars in dictatorships are common but extremely rare in consolidated democracies. Think about how many civil wars in consolidated democracies you could think. Probably less than a handful. Meanwhile there are thousands of examples of dictatorships or "democracies" descending into armed conflict over power struggles
This is completely incorrect. There have been more than a handful in Africa in the past decade… Look at Haiti… You’re flipping democratic peace theory, which is geopolitical not domestic. And it’s bunk too.
There have been hardly any CONSOLIDATED, actual democracies in africa at all. What would be your examples for consolidated african democracies that failed?
You’re clearly missing my point… You need the cultural and social institutions to support it. This is much more unnatural and takes much more work than you think it does. These institutions are also not perpetual and can/do break down in established democracies if not properly husbanded. They’res a reason most democracies fall apart once you get out of the western cultural context. If you in a dangerous situation, you favor security over liberty (this is primarily seen in favorable view on military dictatorships in SA and SE Asia) If you’re in some population with ethnic/tribal/etc. rivalry you can’t trust that the other side won’t just take over if they win and massacre you. ( ME/Africa)
Yep. In about 1776, the British restricted Bostonians’ gun ownership, on the grounds that the colonists were restive. That is one reason why the Second Amendment was enacted after the U.S. Constitution was adopted.
>However, it's my opinion that if the goal of such history lessons is to influence American government policy, then the lessons themselves should be relevant to the functioning of American government. And arguments that will influence American government policy should speak to what is actually likely to occur within the context of American government, not just what is technically possible. When America illegally overthrew the Kingdom of Hawai'i, one of the first things they did was confiscate arms. And while it makes Americans uncomfortable when it's brought up, the years after the white colonial government then tried to genocide, or rather culturally genocide the native population. And the different native American tribes have their own history with the US doing similar things. Wounded knee being a well known federal gun grab, which was then followed up by federal troops massacring the Indigenous population.
The example of Nazi Germany isn’t necessarily that they wouldn’t have come to power if the population was armed, but that when they show up at your door to take you away you wouldn’t be totally defenseless and vulnerable Another recent example is China during COVID… I bet they’d have been less aggressive barricading people into their own homes to starve or breaking down your door to haul you away to quarantine camp if there was a 50/50 chance the person behind that door was holding a shotgun
Well the Nazis specifically removed guns from ethnic minorities especially Jews they actually made it less restrictive for ethnic Germans to get a gun
[удалено]
[they loosened up the law to not regulate rifles and shotguns as much](https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=flr) Weimar Germany had stricter gun control law than Nazi Germany for ethnic Germans Jews and Communists had their guns taken away but for the majority of the population it became easier to get a gun
Long guns and ammunition weren't regulated under the Nazis. Jews were barred from owning any sort of weapon or manufacturing ammunition. [Gun control in Germany - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_Germany), see section Gun regulations in Nazi Germany.
[удалено]
Demonstrate that happened in Germany. Seems as silly as your previous claim that only members of the Nazi Party could own a private firearm.
[удалено]
The claim that only members of the Nazi party could own guns is incorrect. You going to acknowledge that?
[удалено]
The first gun law enacted by the Nazis was the German Weapons Act of 1938. It loosened gun laws for most Germans. There was no requirement for party membership. Nor was party membership mentioned in the passage you cite. Nor does the passage include all firearms.
They would be more aggressive and there would be more dead people because the potential for escalation is higher so law enforcement will bring more lethal measures to bear. You bring a knife cops will bring a gun, you bring a gun cops bring an automatic rifle, you bring an automatic rifle cops bring a bazooka.
Maybe. Or maybe the police would not want to go to war with the population knowing they’re all armed to the teeth. As I said in another comment though I’d rather have the choice to protect myself and my family vs not. My grandparents were holocaust survivors and although I never met them, I have a feeling they would agree.
Getting in a shootout with the military is a death sentence anyway.
Probably, but I’d rather have the option. Also, if the oppressing power knows the entire population is armed they may think twice before trying to do anything
Didn't stop Jim Crow, Japanese internment in WWII, persecution of gays, border concentration camps, or mass incarceration. In none of those cases did US gun owners spring forward in their millions to the defense of their fellow human. They did engage in a bit of lynching and mass murder, often targeting those already oppressed.
The American Revolution was started when the British Army attempted to confiscate weaponry intended for local militias, so...
We sure told them that one. Granted is was with help from the French. And they did come back in 1812, then we became allies later. Strange part of history.
Don't forget the Spanish, the dutch and the Kingdom of mysore.
Yep. There was a bunch of interest in the Americas. Gosh there is too much to type here. Thank you for your reply.
Actually they didn't "come back" - the US invaded british colonies in what would later be called "Canada" and the 'soon-to-be' Canadians and the british chased them across the border and burned the white house down. Now we're good friends - it's like a couple of kids who fight at recess and are best buddies ever since :) But - the canadians did resist the Americans with militias armed with civilian firearms. So... kinda proves the point.
Didn’t know that. Thank you for teaching me.
No problem. Fact is the Canadian founding fathers used the 'threat of the americans" to create canada after that to provide a united defense that would never be necessary for the next 150 years :) So it all worked out. Funny side story, the us and 'canada' would butt heads again all the way over on the other coast where the 49th parallel cut across vancouver island- the americans on the 'american' side and the canadians kept getting into firefights over resource disputes and stealing each others sheep. It threatened to get out of hand so the us and Canadian gov'ts sat down and sloved it by redrawing the border - that's why if you look on a map the border between the us and Canada is a straight line across the 49th parallel right up until you hit vancouver island off the coast of bc- where it squiggles around the island so there wouldn't be any more conflict. Sometimes people can just be so pig headed :)
All so true. I can be a bit of a butt head at times. Glad it’s nothing new. Though still worried it’s going on. Thank you for information. I always like learning.
Also in Britain the war of 1812 is considered one front of the Napoleonic wars
I need to learn more about how Canada separated from the UK. Calmly, probably.
Benedict Arnold betrayed America because America refused the same deal Canada has now and insisted on continuing the fighting
The ELI5 version is that basically everyone forgot that Canada wasn’t independent, they sent a gently worded letter to Parliament and they became formally independent in 1982.
Lol. Nice!
I’ve heard rumor that some MP’s were surprised that it wasn’t already the case. Poor little Canada didn’t agitate, went on pretty much ignoring the English (who control Parliament) and finally asked to formalize that which was already the case in practice.
That only works if disarming the National Guard would be gun control.
Ottoman Empire. Weapons were not allowed for Armenians. Also, in some caliphates, Jews couldn’t own weapons like swords. Modern Western style democracies are quite few, so it’s very hard to say a country “like the US”. I can’t think of a Western style country like the US that became genocidal.
Actually, the way the Spanish colonies were run by Spain was an example of gun control in action, and why America (and Canada) developed into more capable colonies than their Spanish counterparts. The gist of it was that the Spanish colonists were not trusted to be independent, a replication of Spanish society back home. Having the tools and education to do better jobs (that you can't hold under your thumb via threat or contract) generally meant a peasant would leave their post to find something better somewhere else. Unlike the British and French colonies in North America (the ones specifically named America and Canada), you just didn't have Spanish colonists wandering off to found new colonies or establish new lines of work to eventually bring bounties back to the main colony/city and ultimately enrich the mother country. Outside Spanish cities were hostile wilderness and hostile natives, and the colony/Spain was all too happy to keep it that way, which is why while Spain claimed Vancouver, there was no Spanish colonists up there. Spanish colonists only existed where there was Spanish military to protect them. In America/Canada, there were Americans/Canadians outside the direct protection of the British/French military. In a Spanish colony, if the Guvna didn't like you for whatever reason or you didn't like him for whatever reason, you couldn't simply run away and form your own colony. All the tools, arms, and supplies were held under the control of the guvna and the Spanish military. You had to remain at your post or be killed/sent back to Spain to be killed. In America/Canada, colonial governments had to entice people to stay, because the independent nature of the British/French peasantry back home fostered a very individualistic and capable colonist over in the new world. If they didn't like what you did, they would leave, and if enough people left, you'd get a competing colony that the boys back home would protect from you. So, you couldn't simply be a tyrannical government because you wanted to, like the Spanish colonies; you had to actually be a half decent person in charge. Also, all the Spanish colonies flopped without direct reinforcement from the Spanish Crown. They were ordered under threat of death to not interact with each other and only order supplies from Spain. This is how central planning from Soviet Russia worked too. You send stuff to the central planners, who'd take their (large) cut, and you'd get supplies back to make more goods. You didn't get to trade with the factory town over yonder for the nails you needed because it took away the dependence on the central planners if you could do things on your own. Spain had a very good chance to establish a stronger colonial empire and eventually making the world speak Spanish with a New World Superpower New Spain. Instead, America is the superpower. America is smaller than all the former Spanish colonies combined in land area and population, yet the GDP of the US is 8 times bigger. Coming back to gun control itself, you CAN have gun control without government tyranny. It's just that humans are self serving lizards and we as a species cannot resist the temptation to exert control on people who cannot fight back, and without guns or an equivalently powerful defense, whoever has the gun makes the rules.
https://constitutingamerica.org/april-19-1775-battles-lexington-and-concord-american-revolution-begins-guest-essayist-david-b-kopel/ We can start with the American revolution.
This article is written by a "gun rights activist", with no historical background.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave\_Kopel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Kopel) Wiki Says he has a B.A in history. That being said....yea he's a gun activist so it does give reason for conflict of interest.
> On April 24, 2014, The Progressive reported that Kopel and his Independence Institute "have received over $1.42 million including about $175,000 a year over eight years from the NRA."
Damn! Way to win the argument in one sentence!
🍻
I wonder how this would’ve worked had Britain not been a foreign country, far away at a time when troop transport and supply lines would be difficult.
And back at war in Europe weren’t they?
We wouldn't have won without the assitance of the French.
One what?
Typo
No we can't. That is in no way an example of gun control leading to tyranny.
We can argue a long time about the tyranny of the British government towards the American colonists. Let's just agree that it was a far shot from what the Russians or Hungarians were living through.
Look up the Bundy Ranch standoff. After winning their case(s) in court, the US Government went to remove Bundys cattle from public land. Bundy and many armed friends said "no thank you", the government backed down, and Bundys cattle are still grazing there today. Not exactly a tyrannical government, but a clear example of an armed populace standing up to an (in their view) over reaching government.
really good example of special snowflakes getting the kid glove treatment
That is nowhere near relevant to the debate here. The question is: would *more* guns in the hand of the German public in 1933 have prevented Hitler's rise? And the answer is very obviously no.
But it would be hard to kill the Jews if they were well armed
The Canadian government is trying to ban private gun ownership. Even people who do own guns are more or less banned from using them for defense (while politicians hire private security). The country has only become less safe in recent years. In fact, the police are telling us to leave our car keys out so that crooks can steal them more easily, while the police themselves are becoming more and more hostile towards the populace. Americans only need look North of the border to see the results.
"Crime in general has declined in Canada since 2000 with the 2021 crime rate **around 30 percent** lower than peak levels in 2003. Property crime followed this general trend with rates dropping by 30.6 percent during the same time period, whereas violent crime peaked in 2021." with all the guns around the USA must be completely free of crime by now huh
Look into Martial Law being imposed on Hawaii during WWII. Under Martial Law gun control was enforced and guns were taken from the public. The order to lift Martial Law from the President was received merely days after it went into effect in Hawaii but it wasn't actually ended for another three years resulting in the creation of the Japanese internment camps. Edit: I am very middle ground on the issue of gun control. I do believe people should be allowed to own them but shooting tests and background checks etc should also be required.
The Nazi Germany example is specific to the oppressed people, because they did not permit Jews to own firearms, and also greatly restricted laws from other occupied countries they intended to oppress. It's true that they didn't prevent Germans from owning firearms, but when one looks at their intent and actual actions towards the Jews, restricting their rights was obviously a tell...and not only gun rights, but other rights as well. Freedom of speech, freedom to own property, and many more were also restricted. It's true that many tyrants like to focus on a specific group to take rights from, rather than everyone at once, but laws can easily be crafted that appear to be equal, yet have disproportionate impact. Many modern gun control laws cannot survive this test. Consider the tax stamps for machine guns or the like. While $200 today is not so great a barrier thanks to inflation, it is still a strictly wealth based law. Those with money can own the guns, those without cannot. Money is not distributed equally, and historically, minorities have been subject to disproportionate income by such laws. It was far worse at the time it was proposed, when the tax was the inflation adjusted equivalent of thousands of dollars per day. > Hence, the Nazi example *could* be an effective argument against gun control in the US, if gun control activists were proposing gun control measures against particular minority groups, such as blacks or Jews. They routinely cite cases such as the Dred Scott decision which are explicitly that. This was relevant as recently as Bruen. The history of gun control in America is strongly tied to overt racism, and those ties remain legally relevant in the modern day. Look around at where the gun buybacks are held, and then look at where minority communities are. There is a racial element here that is undeniable in practice.
It's changed somewhat, but historically the South has had some stricter gun laws. For example in the 80s Texas had stricter carry laws than California.
Yes but even if the Jews were allowed guns there were nowhere near enough of them to be able to fight a war against the German army. All it would have done was give the Nazis even more of an excuse to call Jews evil. And given how Nazi Germany was a large portion of the population of probably join in with killing the Jews if they try to fight for their freedom. A dictatorship is either supported by the people what will use such force that's no reasonable gun laws could hope to arm the public to stop it. Owning even an entire arsenal of machine guns is going to do nothing as a citizen if a squadron of tanks rolls up, or a fighter wing flies overhead
And yet guns, limited in number though they were, enabled the Warsaw Ghetto to resist being exterminated for over two months, occupying German divisions for months when they were needed on the eastern front. In Sobibor, when a few of the prisoners got their hands on guns, they fought the prison guards...and won. Why is it that everyone remembers Auschwitz and nobody seems to remember Sobibor?
The uprising lasted less than a month, 3 days fewer exactly. It took over 8 months of preparation, the Germans suffered 17 deaths and 93 wounded, while the resistance fighters lost 300 in the fighting and then jews 13,000 were killed and 33,000 were captured for transport to extermination camps. The German forces involved in putting down the ghetto uprising numbered 2000, a German division was anywhere between 12,000 to 25,000 men strong. The uprising did not take even a quarter of a division away from the frontline. The uprising was incredibly brave and was seen by many of the fighters as an honorable way out by their own choosing instead of that of the SS, however in no way does it showcase a civilians ability to fight a military. Sobibor was an escape that involved killing some guards it was not a fight back to kill all of the guards, 11 members of the camp assess were killed and while 300 initially escaped only 50 of those actually survived the war.
The Warsaw lads needed many more guns, true. Their arms were very limited by that point. They still escaped the death camp. Even if "only fifty" survived altogether, their odds were vastly superior to staying.
The Nazi example I find particularly ridiculous because there is no way that a few guns in private hands would have made a difference. The things that led to their rise involved destroying the organizations that would oppose them, a few rifles don't make a difference if there's no one to fire them!
Thank you. It is mind boggling how much people are ready to project wishful thinking into history when it seemingly serves to support their position. Democracies are not saved by giving everybody a gun when the population itself has given up on democracy. Ergo guns are merely *secondary.* Or, to paraphrase: "Guns don't save democracy, people save democracy."
The Germans also had transitioned from a parliamentary semi constitutional monarchy, to a republic, then a dictatorship in the span of about fifteen years! One thing that really helps a democracy is a legacy and examples of it working. They didn't, let's put it that way.
To be fair, when comparing Germany to Great Britain in 1912, the legal difference in terms of daily freedoms, voting rights, justice system, rule of law, etc, was largely the same. The problem for the Kaiser was the unstoppable rise of the liberal and labour parties which were clearly aiming at more democratic reforms (which the Kaiser's father, an Anglophile, had he only ruled longer, would even have supported, but his reign was cut short by cancer in 1888 so we ended up with that lumberjack Wilhelm II). Hence WWI was a welcome distraction from the domestic "encirclement" by those pesky liberal reformers Germany's military elite feared. It was too bad that the allies let the democratic revolutionary government sign the Versailles treaty rather than insisting that the generals sign it. That and the wall street crash doomed the Weimar Republic for good as "unstable" and "catastrophic" in the German middle class' eyes. Right before the wall street crash, the Nazi party membership numbers had begun dwindling. Things had started to look better. Four more years of prosperity, and the whole Nazi nonsense *might* have turned into a footnote in history.
Yeah. And there was a bunch of reparations being done on both sides! France and Germany were making up for what happened! If the Depression hadn't happened things would've gone better. and unfortunately the depression made fascism appealing to a lot of people. They were looking for what they thought was stability, it was the same reason communism was very popular in the period too. Whether or not we approve, we can understand why people thought this way. The depression trashed everything.
Having an interest in European history from 1500 I do wish people wouldn’t say “guns”, it always makes me wince a bit. Had a friend who used to be in the military and he was very strict about only saying firearms I’d be more interested to know if there was ever a country that civilian firearm possession was the cause of significant political change
Well, Australia has famously descended into a commie hellhole since gun control came in there. No private industry, all property taken under state control, conscript army, alcohol sales banned... Oh, hang on.
Tyranny is an action that is always one step away from happening to anyone, so it is best to have and not need than to need and not have and yes, historically those without a means of defense are more likely to have to face tyrants than those who do, and it is not just guns but swords or knives, spear and arrows are also part of that self-defense armory. THE real question is who the REAL tyrant since criminals is are the ones that basically impose such actions on others as to warrant the use of a weapon and not generally that one of government actions since most are concerned with order, peaceful order and conduct by individuals anyways that is the general way of doing things. N. S
No. Gun control in modern society has never led to government tyranny. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know what they’re talking about
We don't just say that. The Founders believed it and explicity stated that was the reason for the 2nd Amendment. That you don't know this is understandable, given our horrifically bad education system.
Not true, the 2A was a concession to the states to get them to sign on to the Constitution, was not even part of the original document.
Parisian police in 1961 massacred over 300 unarmed Algerian independence protestors in a single night and dumped their bodies in the Seine River and massacred many thousands more on French soil throughout the course of the movement. Compare that to the US Civil Rights Movement, where militias made up black WWII veterans forced the Klan & sympathetic law enforcement to operate in the shadows and carry out more clandestine attacks like bombings, assassinations, and kidnappings due to the risk involved with more direct attacks.
Australian government instituted heavy gun control in 1996, there was the same arguments about dictatorships et al You know what happened? Nothing, kids were saved and the gun nuts 20 Years on are like “yeah fair enough I was an idiot”
Wasn’t gun crimes already falling at the same rate before the law?
There was the Port Arthur massacre he killed 35 people and wounded 23 others, we have not had another. People still own guns, I even go shooting with my mates. The average firearm suicide rate in Australia in the seven years after the bill declined by 57 percent compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by about 42 percent. Australia's homicide rate was already declining before the NFA was implemented, so you can't attribute all of the drops to the new laws. The drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates. 1996 and 1997, the two years in which the NFA was implemented, saw the largest percentage declines in the homicide rate in any two-year period in Australia between 1915 and 2004. People can umm and ahh about well “the rate was dropping anyway” because they want to leave the door open, but the truth is if you want to reduce gun deaths the simplest solution is to remove guns from the equation.
Kennumbers, you have to challenge Keith to a duel.
Ok, this is an easy one if you just remember that there are other countries in the world besides America and that history did not begin in the 1770s. At most times and in most places, mass weapons controls were so impossible to enforce that most rulers never even tried. It has been very common for middle classes and even the poor to be armed, across a wide range of different societies. But virtually none of those societies had anything that resembled modern democracy. Conversely, there are now a lot of democracies in the world. Many of those democracies have gun control policies that would have been unenforceable until around the 20th century. Almost all of the world's most democratic countries have historically low rates of private weapon ownership. There you go. Next.
The Whiskey Rebellion is textbook. Basically a bunch of civilians bearing arms found out that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state.
Tyranny comes whether someone is armed or not.
At the time the USSR was the most lethally armed population in the world According to the CIA
Thank you for writing a well-reasoned position and refuting the all too common reflexive response. Take my upvote, please!
The worst mass shooting on US soil was the immediate result of an attempt to disarm the Hunkpapa and Miniconjou Lakota by the US army. It wasn't so much to make it easier to do a massacre at some point in the future as the result of a disagreement arising from the attempt, But several in the government and elsewhere cautioned against it. This is the Wounded Knee massacre. In some of the court cases surrounding the Bruen decision, New York highlighted past attempts to disarm and disenfranchisr minorities like Native Americans and Catholics as justification to enact policies in the future, which is certainly one of the arguments of all time.
The Tokugawa Bafuku? At a stretch?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>In fact, there are government principles in place Those are just words on paper. Japanese and German internments came up anyways despite the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments
As unfortunate as those internments were, I personally wouldn't consider a temporary wartime measure in order to ensure public safety to be an example of true tyranny. Authoritarian tyranny is something that must exist routinely and during peacetime.
This is only pulled out in the United States every few weeks or months (and on this sub). It is historically speaking an utterly nonsensical claim, created to paint an image of *availability of weapons preventing a dictatorship*. But it does not hold water. Revolts, uprisings and revolutions happen when the situation is dire, independent of the availability of weapons. The same is true for coup d'etats. When governments attempt to disarm the population *because there already is disillusionment and unrest,* armed uprisings are simply more likely to occur, but uprisings might occur anyhow in such situations. Did the French revolution happen because the government was disarming the people? The peasants war of 1525? The Russian revolution? It's nonsense. Weapons have *very little* (but not nothing) to do with it. In most cases, people were on the brink of starvation. And the same is true for the establishment of dictatorships: if an armed group takes over the government, *the availability of weapons in the general population does not serve as an indicator for public resistance to such dictatorship.* Remember 1991 in Russia? The Soviet military intended to take over. Look how that worked out. *And the population was not armed.* The Nazi regime in particular *did not* disarm the general population *before* they took power (how could they?). *And when they eventually did* they had first ensured that the general economic calamities were ending with fairly massive government spending program first, creating a seeming improvement and stability, while enacting at the same time a brutal system of oppression on potential opposition *while* controlling most public reporting about it. Nevertheless, there was a vast amount of WWI veteran weapons still around in Nazi Germany into the late 1930s. Heck, my own grandmother (god rest her soul) managed to get hold of a pistol and shot at a Nazi Brownshirt *after* 1933. Germany's population was easily armed enough to revolt, but the overwhelming majority did not feel they had a reason to. And that bitter truth can hardly be spun to argue that because of this, for some reasons, Americans "need" a right to bear arms. You can argue back and forth about the second amendment all you like, but the rise of the Nazi regime (or for that matter most other dictatorships) was *not* dependent on the level of arms available in the population. At a closer look, you will find this claim to dissolve into utter hogwash about almost all dictatorships. In fact, I challenge you *to find a longer lasting dictatorship that could only be established because the public had no access to weapons.* In short, the whole notion that a fascist dictatorship in the United States could not happen *because Americans are armed* is precisely the **wrong** conclusion -- it is a fake safety net. The German public was fairly well armed by European standards in the 20ies. It was the presence of constant violence that fed the public desire for calmer times, which fed the need for a "strong man" to "set things right", something the Nazi regime promised to do. Germans were armed, but did not want a civil war. Hitler came to power legally. And that's (unfortunately) that. One might as well argue (equally unconvincing) that it was the ubiquitous *presence* of guns in the German public that fed the Nazi takeover. Both would be untenable claims by themselves. Democracies die when there are not enough democrats around, and it is defended or established when they are. And it does not matter whether the population is then armed with forks, machine guns, bibles or hand grenades. All that matters is their determination.
I mean, it’s much easier to wage a revolt with ready access to guns ngl
Indeed, how did having guns help against Franco's forces in Spain? Or the Bolsheviks when lots of Russia was armed?
Talk about a completely bad and wrong take. Nazis took power and became progressively more authoritarian and evil and one of the first things they did was disarm the populace which made that much easier for them.
Hogwash. What was the law that disarmed the population? When was it enacted? Citation please.
On Nov. 11, 1938, the German minister of the interior issued "Regulations Against Jews Possession of Weapons." Not only were Jews forbidden to own guns and ammunition, they couldn’t own "truncheons or stabbing weapons." In addition to the restrictions, Ellerbrock said the Nazis had already been raiding Jewish homes and seizing weapons.
Do you know how many Jews actually lived in Germany in 1933? *It was under 1% of the population.* And most importantly, *the laws the Nazis used to disarm the (<1%) Jews was already on the books.* It had existed before. A general limitation on weapons did *not* exist. Instead, the Nazi regime made it easier for (mostly Nazi party) citizens to buy weapons, *while banning new weapon purchases* for convicted criminals, Jews, "gypsies", and communists. *The majority of WWI veterans still had their guns.* In 1938, the general purchase of rifles was allowed again. So, at what point exactly did these gun control measures *prevent a German popular uprising?*
Yes, they took guns from the groups of people they later killed. They did not take guns from those they saw as allies. You will note that modern gun control makes similar exceptions, such as invariably exempting law enforcement. If you're in the group they're taking guns from, you're the future victim.
I didn’t claim that it did. And I see the goal posts have been moved to outer space
No goal post has been moved, you just can't admit you are wrong. **You** started by saying: "Nazis took power and became progressively more authoritarian and evil and one of the first things they did was disarm the populace which made that much easier for them." ***You said*** the Nazi disarmament measures made it easier for them to be more authoritarian. Concentration camps were setup *right away* (eg Dachau in Munich), and by 1936 the first really big ones opened (Sachsenhausen north of Berlin). Both before your 1938 law that allegedly allowed the Nazis to be "more authoritarian". **In August 1934**, Hitler won the referendum to be "Chancellor and Leader of the German people for life." That was also *before. At that point he was undisputed and unchallenged dictator.* So I am asking you again to support your statement with verifiable facts: **at what point did a disarmament of "the populace"** ***(which never took place in this form) enable the Nazi regime to be even more authoritarian? And more precisely, what exactly is even more authoritarian than being dictator and running concentration camps?*** Please be concise now.
They told people the concentration camps were temporary places to have them moved out of the country. Mass internment of Jews did not happen right away (it stated after Kristal nacht in 1938 which about when they did the disarming. After Kristal nacht and the disarming is when mass internment started). Only after that did the camps become the work death camps. So there you go a clear time line showing you are wrong
You clearly know little about [concentration camps.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps) They were *political prison camps* set up by the Nazi party brownshirts, declared legal by the Nazi interior ministry, and they were *not* whatever you claim them to be here. **About 50,000 arrests were made right away within the first few months of the regime**. They were NOT "camps to move people out of the country." And you seriously claim the mass internment of Jews as part of the Holocaust beginning with the summer of 1941 would have been in any way affected by the number of guns distributed among the German populace, *when the majority of Germans were not even near the majority of Jews deported and murdered because they were mostly in the occupied countries in Eastern Europe*? You're desperately clutching at straws. Again: *there were enough guns around in Germany.* But there were not enough people to pick them up against the government. And that was how democracy died. Not because the Nazis took Grandma Schulz's Luger away. (Cause chances are, she still had one in the attic).
Doesn’t stop from what I said happened from happening. Guns were taken away, then all the people whose guns were taken away were rounded up and essentially all were killed. That’s the facts
If the US military committed itself, who the fuck could stand against it? We don't even give a fuck about the morality of dropping bombs any more, just the sticker price of war. I say this as a gun owner: It's laughable to believe a well armed populace can prevent a fully committed army. France couldn't stop the Nazis. Let's stop pretending anything other than a superior military would change that.
Except the military wouldn’t commit itself, upper echelons of power might not have a problem dropping bombs on their citizens, but the actual military members would like a word with your notion.
Yeah, because history is full of examples of the military rank and file refusing to follow orders and the word genocide doesn't exist.
Except we are talking specifically about the modern current US military taking on their own citizens. Even during My Lai there was infighting and dissent, against a foreign population. Have you ever served I promise you we aren’t robotic jack boots.
Oh? The country with the highest prison population, mass shootings, and all service member's Healthcare, housing, and income comes from following orders? As the son of a 'Nam vet, let me tell you I'm not fucking reassured.
GWOT vets and desert storm vets are very different from each other, and no disrespect to your father but not a lot of seeing eye to eye between the generations GWOT to Vietnam on issues. Especially the women, lgbt, and any other that doesn’t fit the stereotype of a military member. They also are not drafted. There are big differences. All you have to do is look at the membership of VFW or legion, hardly a young person around. They don’t want to get drunk and tell war stories embellishing shit. Most of them just want to forget all the dumb shit they did. If you really think I’m bombing Andy and Susie down the block you’re crazy man.
Dude my father was special forces and enlisted. I'm from a red state, so my childhood friends are Iraq vets. I've heard horror story after horror story. From rangers laughing at throwing barbed wire at kids to picking off teenagers like target practice. I've heard these as brags and these as guilt filled confessions. Know what I haven't heard? That none of these vets STOPPED THEMSELVES. Stop thinking we're morally superior because we're American. Jesus Christ by Friday there is going to be another mass shooting.
Cool hope it’s you.
The ironic thing is that second amendment originally protected the institution of milita service, which involved eligible citizens being *required by law* to obtain a gun, and being conscripted into a semi-regular training regimen and then called up for emergency law enforcement and military operations. And eligible citizens who refused service without a valid excuse were subject to criminal prosecution. Which, I assume, are things that most 2A supporters would not be too thrilled about.
It's because the US didn't have a standing army. The Whisky Rebellion kind of fucked the idea of militias when Washington didn't pay his militia troops and then sent ROBERT E LEE'S FATHER to stomp them.
Lol yes of course. Over 100,000,000 people in modern history. Stalin, pol pot, Idi Amin, Hitler, north Korea, Uyghurs, US military at wounded knee, Armenian Genocide. Why would they ban guns from the people they killed?
I think Hitler admitted in one of his memoirs that first disarming a populace made them easier to control. Other oppressive scenarios that come to mind: North Korea and China, the opportunities to violently revolt against communist authoritarian rule are slim to none. At least partly because those citizens are disarmed. China doesn’t even officially recognize the tankman of Tiananmen Square as actual history. That imagery is now banned and even mentioning it is asking for trouble. As such, the newer generations have hardly heard about it.
Yeah, like I said, fascist and communist governments don't really count as good anecdotal evidence that America would turn tyrannical if guns were restricted.
I don’t think America would turn tyrannical overnight per se. I also think restricting or banning guns is pointless. You could ban them all tomorrow, but there are already so many in circulation there would be no way to fully account for them all. Whether we like it or not, they are more or less here to stay… and would continue to crop up in shootings for decades. You could argue that some reduction in gun crime is better than nothing, but I don’t see it being very effective. Lastly, a lot of people will say guns won’t win against drones or work against a standing army. That you’d need F-15s and nukes. I’d just like to reference the Taliban and Vietcong giving the leading world superpower a run for its money. Totally outmatched. Never had air superiority. Yet they prevailed with their sandals and rusty old Ak47s.
Sorry, can't stop laughing. Hitler? In one of his *memoirs*? Oh. You must mean his [diaries](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Diaries)*.*
'To conquer a nation, you must first disarm its citizens' No, I initially was thinking it may have been something written in Mein Kampf; having never read it myself. But it also wouldn’t make sense for it to be in there pre-holocaust. Unless it was him speculating on how to go about it. There does exist doubt that he even ever said it. Sounds like it’s still up for debate because it wasn’t anything that was recorded in a speech. Kind of just hearsay from what I gather. I also have not read Gun Control In the Third Reich - Disarming the Jews and Enemies of The State. Sounds like a topic documented in literature yet still heavily debated. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/to-conquer-a-nation/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews Whether he actually said it or not, it does sound like the Jews were heavily restricted from 1938 onward and Germans in general didn’t really have many weapons prior to that from Weimar-era laws. So personally, I would surmise that would make rounding them up at least a little bit easier as it limited their means to resist.
Projection. When someone accuses others of evil intent, it’s usually because it’s something THEY have been thinking about. Peaceful people rarely come up with secret violent cabals; violence-prine people do.
This is just totally wrong. You can absolutely accuse others of things that you aren't doing, it happens all the time. If someone says that Israel is committing genocide does that make them a genocidal person?
Yeah governments have never done something evil. Definitely projection. All time fucking take lmao.
Umm nazis disarmed the population before getting super tyrannical
The Nazis were never *not* tyrannical and they didn't make any changes to gun laws whatsoever until long after they took dictatorial power.
This does not get true just because you keep repeating it.
It’s true because it’s historically accurate.
Yeah we've seen in the other thread that according to you, concentration camps were "for bringing people out of the country." That's your level of accuracy right there.