Lol, it does seem that certain facts do have that tendency at least here at opp. I am sometimes amazed and disappointed that so many fail to do even a little research and just accept things like that paranoid video at face value. Confirmation bias at its very best.

But as a child and well into my twenties I was the quiet good little boy strictly trained in please and thank you and otherwise remain silent. And maybe that explains the stick and the hornet's nest.

That the facts I presented are undeniable, I am curious if anyone from the Gun club will respond. If I were a betting man I would say....

Lol, you mean analyzing something to find the level of truth or lie is somehow an evil trick of the Left? The argument was made that gun control under Hitler was a) stricter,and b) used to confiscate guns from ALL the citizens--are outright lies. Is that being needlessly picky to point out falsehoods or just being intelligent?
These lies have been used as a fundamental argument against gun control. The NRA nut's book is a case in point: "The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition...”
Since when is seeking facts and the truth a defect to be avoided? Reality can be harsh sometimes.

Lol, it does seem that certain facts do have that tendency at least here at opp. I am sometimes amazed and disappointed that so many fail to do even a little research and just accept things like that paranoid video at face value. Confirmation bias at its very best.

But as a child and well into my twenties I was the quiet good little boy strictly trained in please and thank you and otherwise remain silent. And maybe that explains the stick and the hornet's nest.

That the facts I presented are undeniable, I am curious if anyone from the Gun club will respond. If I were a betting man I would say....

I have 3 hand guns, one 22 cal long barrel rifle and a long pellet gun. I am a gun ownership advocate. Rumi, thanks for the article. I had no opinion as Germany's gum policies 80 yrs ago and don't see the relevance of it today. Perhaps, some folks are looking for an excuse why we ought to bear arms and are looking at History, realistic or not as a reason to bear arms today. The second amendment is all the assurance we need. However, I fear that the erosion of the Constitution is a real threat to us all. The real lesson in history that we all should investigate is the fall of the Roman empire, never to rise again as a world power. How it rose to power and how it failed. Over spending and debt cause it to fail. Beware.

You seem to always want to twist the truth to your advantage, but you messed up with this one. Hitler knew the German non jew would not raise arms to defend the Jews. The German people were brainwashed into thinking that the Jews were the reason for the German economic downfall. It was in fact because they lost the war.
You did post that he wouldn't allow Jews to own guns. Why do you think that was? It is obvious that he disarmed the part of the population that may actually fight against him.
Your argument sir is disingenuous at best but most just BS from a radical libertard. Heil Obama.

If it has escaped you, the laws that granted the possession of firearms was for good National Socialist German Workers Party, aka Nazi, only. Anyone that was considered "an enemy of the state" which was defined by the accusing official, could be just about anyone that was not a card carrying Nazi. I recommend a book entitled: 'Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and "Enemies of the State." Authored by Stephen Halbrook. Stephen Halbrook is an eminent constitutional lawyer and scholar who has successfully argued or been cited in several cases before the U.S supreme Court -- e.g., the important Printz vs. the United States (1997), District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Florida State University and J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center.

I believe strongly in our 2nd Amendment, for you see had many of the people considered "enemies of the state" had not been stripped of their firearms, then perhaps the 1.5 million children (children defined as anyone under the age of 13) would not have been murdered; another 11 million others; that included Gypsy, blacks, Soviet POWs, and homosexuals would not have been murdered. But, you see the 1939 law that addressed the rights of the Arian Race as the pure race is an acceptable argument for gun control. I do not see that the excluded "enemies of the state" as inconsequential to your post. I think that it should have been addressed if you had indeed intended your copy from Wikipedia as an unbiased historical and factual documentation of gun control in Germany.
.

Wikipedia is not a valid source, just as You Tube is not a valid source. If you are interested in the truth, it takes more than a simple Google search. It requires hours, days, weeks, months, years of research, reading old news papers, documents from historical societies, the original laws or accounts recorded in diaries from the time period. Even then, to be verifiable information, you have to have three or more agreeing sources. It is pretentious to offer a singular source as documentation if you are saying your research is unbiased and historical in nature. And, I agree one should never form an opinion that they will defend without doing adequate homework.

Wikipedia is not a valid source, just as You Tube is not a valid source. If you are interested in the truth, it takes more than a simple Google search. It requires hours, days, weeks, months, years of research, reading old news papers, documents from historical societies, the original laws or accounts recorded in diaries from the time period. Even then, to be verifiable information, you have to have three or more agreeing sources. It is pretentious to offer a singular source as documentation if you are saying your research is unbiased and historical in nature. And, I agree one should never form an opinion that they will defend without doing adequate homework.