When Liberals don’t like history, they just re-write it

Aaron Worthing dissects a piece at Mother Jones that attempts to  make the case that Hitler’s disarming of the Jews was, get ready for it, good for the Jews.

So this morning I find out that Mother Jones published a piece called Was Hitler Really a Fan of Gun Control?  The dissembling involved is nothing less than spectacular.  So let’s fisk this sucker:

Now, the fascinating thing about the Mother Jones piece is that it exposes a tactic the Left has been using a long time, call it historical erasure. They spin history, omit the things they do not like, and push their scripted version as “fact” to the masses. It is another way to replace education with indoctrination. Watch what Mother Jones does here.

Back to the subject of gun control, a more serious examination of the evidence comes in “Nazi Firearms Laws and the Disarming of German Jews,” in the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative law:

 
This article addresses German firearms laws and Nazi policies and practices to disarm German citizens, particularly political opponents and Jews. It begins with an account of post-World War I chaos, which led to the enactment in 1928 by the liberal Weimar republic of Germany’s first comprehensive gun control law. Next, the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was consolidated by massive searches and seizures of firearms from political opponents, who were invariably described as “communists.” After five years of repression and eradication of dissidents, Hitler signed a new gun control law in 1938, which benefitted Nazi party members and entities, but denied firearm ownership to enemies of the state. Later that year, in Kristallnacht (the Night of the Broken Glass), in one fell swoop, the Nazi regime disarmed Germany’s Jews. Without any ability to defend themselves, the Jewish population could easily be sent to concentration camps for the Final Solution. After World War II began, Nazi authorities continued to register and mistrust civilian firearm owners, and German resistence to the Nazi regime was unsuccessful.
 
That is right, folks, Kristallnacht was about disarming Jews, too.
 
And I gently suggest you read the whole thing.
 
Of course the Mother Jones piece acknowledges this, in a backhanded way:
 
In 1938, under Nazi rule, gun laws became significantly more relaxed. Rifle and shotgun possession were deregulated and gun access for hunters, Nazi Party members, and government officials was expanded. The legal age to own a gun was lowered. Jews, however, were prohibited from owning firearms and other dangerous weapons.
 
In other words, the people Hitler liked were allowed to have guns, but not others.  Oh and by the way, the Jews were not allowed to have guns, but hey, why would they need them?  Of course that last question is rhetorical and facetious, but Mother Jones actually found a professor will to argue that it was good for the Jews in Germany to be disarmed:
 
“But guns didn’t play a particularly important part [in maintaining Hitler’s power or the Holocaust] in any event,” says Professor Robert Spitzer, who chairs SUNY Cortland’s political science department and has extensively researched gun-control politics…. If Jews had been better armed, Spitzer says, it would only have hastened their demise. Gun policy “wasn’t the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights, and they were a minority group.”
That is my favorite part, right here “Gun policy “wasn’t the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights” 
See that? The professor, Joseph Spitzer dismisses the notion that being disarmed had anything to do with what eventually happened to the Jews. It was that they were persecuted and denied their rights you see. Of course, it never dawns on Spitzer that the most egregious attack on the rights of German Jews WAS disarming them. Or maybe Spitzer does realize it was, and he is just spinning to downplay the importance of the right to bear arms and the inherent dangers of a government forbidding a segment of its people the right top self-defense. A danger that was crystal clear to our Founders.
Worthing goes on to note that this same propagandist/idiot, take your pick, also refuses to acknowledge that Stalin trampled the rights of Russians by disarming them. 
Of course I find myself quoting Judge Kozinsky’s gorgeous opinion (it’s a dissent but today can be cited as controlling law) in defense of gun laws, again:
 
If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
 
Really it is beyond bizarre to say that it was a good thing for the German Jews to be disarmed under the Nazis.  Even if their defeat was inevitable, maybe those Jews would have preferred to take a few of the bastards with them rather than being murdered without a shot.  And their defeat only looks as inevitable as it must have looked for the Americans in 1776, or the Jews in Warsaw.  And certainly Hitler was worried about Jewish resistance, which is why he disarmed them!
 
Sheesh.
 
The same idiot professor makes the same argument with Stalin: 
Gun enthusiasts often mention that the Soviet Union restricted access to guns in 1929 after Joseph Stalin rose to power. But to suggest that a better armed Russian populace would have overthrown the Bolsheviks is also too simplistic, says Spitzer. “To answer the question of the relationship between guns and the revolutions in those nations is to study the comparative politics and comparative history of those nations,” he explains. “It takes some analysis to break this down and explain it, and that’s often not amenable to a soundbyte or a headline.”If that sounds like Leftist spin AKA BS that is because it is, and Worthing refutes it with common sense 
Again, if Stalin didn’t think an armed populace was a threat to his rule, he wouldn’t have disarmed them.  Oy!
Of course the Mother Jones piece is a prelude to their REAL message, which is “See Americans, gun bans are not that bad, so even IF wink wink, Democrats were to ban guns, it would be OK!! We know, a Unicorn told us so!”
Go read the whole post!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s