Sorry, yes, but for those unfamiliar with history, this is what it looks like. It’s also what “progress” looks like. Sadly, for “progressives.”
14 thoughts on “Weimar Germany”
Comments are closed.
Sorry, yes, but for those unfamiliar with history, this is what it looks like. It’s also what “progress” looks like. Sadly, for “progressives.”
Comments are closed.
Had they known what the line would look like, it would’ve been better if they’d all had a yellow Star of David sewn onto their clothes, or passed out Star of David armbands for everyone to wear.
A ridiculous analogy by people who know nothing about the history of inter-war Germany.
The Weimar Republic initially restricted civilian arms largely because the German military had been required to disarm by the Versailles Treaty. The fear was that an armed populace would lead to a communist revolution along the lines of the Bolsheviks in Russia. If you don’t think that fear was well founded, read up on the Novemberrevolution and the Sparticists uprising. And while you’re at it, savor the good judgement of the socialist SPD in resisting a soviet-style takeover in 1918-19.
Ten years later the restrictions were relaxed to a licensing scheme on the sale, carrying, manufacture, and professional trading in firearms. Is this authoritarian overreach? It’s also interesting that the Nazis — authoritarian in the way that the weak Weimar Republic never could be — relaxed gun laws even further. (Except for Jews, of course; in that regard their racism trumped their more libertarian attitudes toward firearms).
To compare the new gun laws in Connecticut with Weimar Germany is silly. Connecticut is requiring registration of certain firearms, and high capacity magazines, and…what? Where is the boot on someone’s neck?
The fear was that an armed populace would lead to a communist revolution along the lines of the Bolsheviks in Russia. If you don’t think that fear was well founded
It’s not well founded. The Wiemar Republic was a democracy. If the public wanted a Communist government, then they’d just vote one. And unless some makes it illegal for anyone but communists to arm themselves, it’s not going to be a Bolshevik revolution because the non-communists will shoot back.
As it turned out, the same people worried about a communist revolution weren’t sufficiently worried that there’d be a fascist revolution.
” The fear was that an armed populace would lead to a communist revolution along the lines of the Bolsheviks in Russia.”
Analogous to the fear that armed farmers could lead to an American revolution, or that some kind of “Tea Party” might do the same now. I’d say the parallel is exact. Still, I enjoyed you awesome display of pedantic beside the pointness.
“Ten years later the restrictions were relaxed to a licensing scheme on the sale, carrying, manufacture, and professional trading in firearms.”
A rather disingenuous point. Once you’ve disarmed the people you want disarmed, “licensing” access to arms to reliable Kamerad citizens isn’t a relaxation to anyone but rabid control freaks.
“..relaxed gun laws even further. ”
Well duh. If you’re bent on continuing WW1 it’s a good idea if your indoctrinated young men are thoroughly familiar with firearms. That is after you’ve thoroughly purged the population of armed potential trouble makers.
“A ridiculous analogy by people who know nothing about ” is usually a subordinate clause
found in any comment on thoughts by conservatives.
You should make it a New Year resolution to, for the first time, post an intelligent comment at this web site.
I know he has a history here, but it is unclear from his statement whether dn is criticizing the people who write “‘A ridiculous analogy by people who know nothing about’ is usually a subordinate clause found in any comment on thoughts by conservatives” (people commenting on thoughts by conservatives) or the people about whom that is written (conservatives).
Maybe he did make that New Years resolution…
On second thought, no, probably not.
Yes, cgage, he does have a history here, and what a history it is. “dn-guy” is consistently the stupidest of the statists who post here regularly. And if you’ve read some of the others, you know that’s quite an achievement.
I bet even if the law is declared unconstitutional, Connecticut officials will try to keep the data collected from this registration process.
Probably squirreled away someplace out of sight until they decide it’s time to act against the gun owners. Or they may decide to be vindictive and leak the database to criminal elements as a “shopping list”.
And unless some makes it illegal for anyone but communists to arm themselves, it’s not going to be a Bolshevik revolution because the non-communists will shoot back.
Ha. Tell that to the russian White Army fighting the reds — and since you don’t seem to read history, take a moment to look up who won that struggle. The germans were certainly aware of the fight going on a little further east. And it was the rather moderate SPD socialists who sided with the old imperial elites and capitalists to prevent an armed communist revolution in Germany.
As it turned out, the same people worried about a communist revolution weren’t sufficiently worried that there’d be a fascist revolution.
The two are not related in the least. The fascists came into power when the Nazi party won substantial seats in the parliament, and the conservative President Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor. There was no fascist “revolution”, it came entirely from within, democratically at that, through a cozy coalition between the Nazis and national conservative DVNP party.
Ok Dave, I’ll bite. If the point of registering guns in Connecticut isn’t to prevent a revolution, then why the bother? Do you believe a registered gun would have stopped Sandy Hook? If so, please explain exactly how it would have worked?
Ah, Weimar Germany. Sally Bowles, life is a cabaret, and Nazis. Lots of Nazis.
As Ann Althouse recently pointed out, gay Nazis. In the recent concerns regarding ducks, Ann Althouse points out how Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich describes Ernst Rohm and other Weimar-era Nazis as being gay, speaking disapprovingly of their gayness in terms that sound remarkably like . . . Phil Robertson.
Ann Althouse, it appears, is in the anti-Phil Robertson camp to the extent that she states that such non-inclusive views do not belong in the public discourse, but in a kind of “the liberals are guilty too”, she brings Shirer into that circle.
Quoting from the lead Amazon review of this book:
“Hence, Quisling is “pig-eyed”, Rohm is a “pervert”, Goebles is “dwarfish”, Goering is “corpulent”, Ribbentrop is “vain as a peacock”, Brauchitsch is “unintelligent”, Eva Braun has the “brain of a bird”, and so forth. Such epithets may offend the sensibilities of some modern day readers, but they certainly spice up the telling of what could otherwise be a boring tale.”
Oh, my, an assault on little persons and persons with high BMI.
Come to think of it, Joe McCarthy and his enablers sullied reputations with the charge of “Communist”, which arguably “meant something” bad back in the day, that you were allied with a movement advocating violence with allegience to a foreign government. The anti-McCarthy people were trying to sully reputations right back, using the code language of the day to insinuate that McCarthy was part of a gay clique, in a distant era when that meant something bad as in “undermining the morals of our children” or some such thing. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, that saying was used by both sides?
So my question for everyone is, will Shirer’s book join the writings of Mark Twain as the work of well-meaning social reformers (anti-Nazi, anti-racism) in being relegated to back shelves because of insensitive descriptions of persons whose minority status we seek to affirm?
Suzanne Kelo lost her house, as did her neighbors, and the city of New Haven now has a gaping hole in the ground in exchange. Now the state is worried that the Tea Party might start an armed rebellion? Connecticut sounds like a fun place. Dirty little secret: people can move, they don’t need to be paying taxes to the state of Connecticut.