The Myth of Nazi Gun Control

By N. A. Browne

A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their ascent to and maintenance of power. A corollary argument is sometimes made that had the Jews (and presumably, the other targeted groups) been armed, they could have fought off Nazi tyranny. This tract will counter these misassumptions about Nazi gun control.

Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot maintain the confidence and support of its citizenry. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government.

The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany. The only feasible argument that gun control favored the Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). When does the ammo box become a legitimate alternative to the ballot box?

The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. Any direct quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies. (See Bogus Gun Control Quotes.)

An even more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. It hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion. If anything, it would have exacerbated the roiling anti-Semitism of the Party faithful and whipped them into a frenzy. Rather than silent deaths in the camps, Jewish blood would have flowed in the streets. That armed and resistant Jews might have killed some of their Nazi persecutors (as they did in the Warsaw ghetto), while a laudable sentiment, would have been of little significance to the overall operations of the Nazi death machine.

The simple conclusion is that there are no lessons about the efficacy of gun control to be learned from the Germany of the first half of this century. There is no credible argument to be made that an armed German populace would have been any hindrance whatsoever to the Nazi march to power, or the insanity of their deadly hatred. It is all too easy to forget the seductive allure that fascism presented to all the West, bogged down in economic and social morass. What must be remembered is that the Nazis were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. There is the danger to which we should pay great heed.

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2001

Answers

Source of this would be nice Doc:this is it. Great website BTW says the Dockster, whatever.

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2001

Nobody but nobody overthinks an argument better than Doc.

Nazis aside, we have 280M people and 200M guns plus we have a border that can't keep tens of tons of drugs or tens of thousands of people from invading. When guns take on the personna of drugs then pray tell what segment of society will be disarmed and which armed by well intentioned but sophmoric reason? Need a map?

-- Anonymous, February 01, 2001

An even more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance.

Ah yes, so much nicer just to march off to Treblinka without causing a ruckus. After all, if you are going to be sent off to the death camp anyway, why resist and make things worse for you?

What must be remembered is that the Nazis were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves.

Million Mom March anyone?

-- Anonymous, February 01, 2001

Deedah,

Someone needs to start a list of issues and/or politicians that HAVEN'T, at one time or another, somehow been compared with, or linked to, Nazi Germany by it's/their opponents.

It would be a very short list. :)

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2001

Get 200million guns under control? Nothing easier.

Simply require all bullets made henceforth or imported into the US to have a flange running down one side of the brass - so it will not fit into an older gun. Set up a trade in program for new receivers for registered sporting weapons, non registered are simply out of luck.

Yeah, a few hand loaders would hold out until they split their last piece of brass, and who gives a damn? Criminals are not going to take the trouble.

Secondly, require every damn one of the new guns to have one of the new safety gimmicks, either a thumbprint scanner, a wristband gadget, whatever. And electronic firing, no firing pins. These have been tested and already proven to work. And they can be rigged to not be able to fire at certain signals - and these signals can be encoded and set to change at intervals so criminals are still under threat from citizen's protection weapons, while police are not.

A firing pin can be jimmied, electronic firing can be rigged in such a way that you'd have to entirely rebuild the gun to make it fire reliably - and it would be pretty obvious you were carrying an illegal piece - a stolen gun.

Ok, tell me how this program wouldn't work? Illegal imported pieces would stand out like nobody's business, and ammo would have to be imported as well. How many drug addicts can afford $5 per bullet?

Just standing on the corner and shouting about how nothing will ever change, is not solving a problem.

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2001

or you can just bury your head in the sand, and dream of utopia.

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2001

Hey, Unk, how about just laying ON the sand.....

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2001