Originally Posted by
Mojouw
While I do not have the knowledge or the inclination to go through each case in detail - I do know a bit about the (supposed) Hitler quotation and the situation in Germany from the end of the first World War to the installation of Hitler as Chancellor in 1933 and beyond.
It was the Weimar Republic in the period after the first World War that basically eliminated private ownership of firearms. This was largely done to eliminate street violence between the Communists and the National Socialists (Nazis) in the period of high political instability following the armistice. To be fair, these were not the only political and partisan groups engaging in violence during this period, but they certainly drew the most attention. Many historians argue that Hitler and the Nazis would have been frustrated by this law and the subsequent series of strict regulations and permitting of weapons as it served to make it difficult for the "Brownshirts" and other street level enforcers of the early Nazi party to bring directed violence to bear on opposition groups - primarily the Communists. Interestingly enough, it is Hitler and the early Nazis willingness to confront Communists that first began to win them popularity in the period following the war - but I digress.
The only weapon law passed by Hitler and the Nazis in the period before the outbreak of World War II was in 1938. This law essentially removed all regulation on the sale, transfer, and ownership of rifles, shotguns, and ammunition. The majority of the population was exempted from any regulation of gun ownership. Of course there was one glaring exception to this encouragement of gun ownership and that was the Jewish people and other target classes of Nazi oppression. Clearly, this was an attempt to ensure certain segments of the population were not able to defend themselves. Although one could argue that if the Polish Army and Soviet Red Army lost millions of citizens and soldiers in an organized resistance of the Wermacht during 1939-1942, an untrained group of armed Jewish citizens would likely not have held out very long - but again another digression.
Interestingly, the quote above and similar versions of it can not be found in any recorded written text or delivered speech by Hitler. In fact, many attribute it to a misquotation of the following statement by Goebbels "To conquer a nation, one must first disarm its citizens by re-inventing their collective memory of the past." Such a sentiment would fit well with Goebbels belief in and implementation of massive propaganda efforts to re-write history and re-brand a variety of ethnic groups and political movements within Germany and Europe as a whole during the 1930's.
Further, the only anti-gun ownership statement that one does find in the historical record that can be attributed to Hitler is "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.” That seems pretty strident and clear - but there is a caveat. It was said in direct reference to the regulations and policies that should be put in place in the conquered areas of Eastern Europe and Russia. An area already conquered by the force of military arms prior to any attempt to remove guns from the populace at large.
We can briefly look at some of the other "highlights" in that gallery of awful dictators who supposedly took over because there was no ability to field an armed resistance.
Well, the Soviets only came to power after a protracted and bloody civil war following horrors of the eastern front in 1916-17. The Soviets were a minority political group and largely were able to seize and hold power by their ability to steal guns from the Czarist forces. Then a bunch of other groups also armed themselves and they had a good old-fashioned shooting war for the better part of 5 years. Numerous armed citizens died on all sides. We do know that following consolidation of power, Stalin order the strict regulation of weapons (primarily hunting rifles) and even had the internal security forces confiscate weapons from "dissident groups" - which was likely anyone he didn't like. However, armed resistance to the Soviet regime was essentially over by this point as the fighting between 1917-1922 had broken the back of any organized resistance. Since the Gorbachev administration, private gun ownership is regulated but encouraged.
A similar argument can be made for Mao. He certainly believed that power stemmed from the "barrel of a gun". However, his rise to power and early portions of his rule were actively opposed by organized and well armed combat armies in the field and Mao was only able to achieve power after a protracted and bloody war. Again, by the time he was in any position to pass gun control (and it isn't clear that he really did) most of the people who had any interest in armed resistance to Mao were dead or in exile.
Bottom line - in all 3 cases (Hitler, Stalin, and Mao) each dictator began as the leader of a minority political party that was underfunded and ill-equipped. It was only through the initial ineffectiveness and subsequent collapse of the existing political structures that each was able to seize arms, subvert the government, and wrest power by force of arms. In none of the 3 cases did the disarmament of the general populace precede the rise and solidification of their hold on power.
Overall, even if every other dictator on the picture above did engage in a concerted effort to strip their citizenry of arms - what bearing does that have on any discussion of gun regulation in America? As I have previously stated, I think we can confidently reject the hypothesis that the elimination of private gun ownership in the United States is the policy goal of any serious elected leader. I am unaware of any figure that anyone on the left takes seriously that has presented a platform that eliminates gun ownership moving forward and strips the guns already in private hands. While I am certain those people are out there and I bet more than one liberal politician has cashed their donation checks - are they to be taken any more seriously than those that advocate for the possession of anti-aircraft missiles and main battle tanks in the hands of private citizens?
Again, I ask who is attempting to control any group of people and to what end? Further, the conversation (at least for my end) was begun to consider the following:
1. Do the majority of Americans own a gun?
2. What reasonable and mutually agreeable regulations (not necessarily meaning additional or overly restrictive legislation) can be devised to curtail the use of guns on the innocent. Particularly as it relates to the "hot button" issue of mass shootings.
3. Is it possible that the solutions extend beyond simply regulating firearms and run over to mental health, popular attitudes, and general education regarding guns and responsible gun ownership? If so, what can be done to move the conversation forward on those fronts as well?
I want to stress that it was never my intention to signal that I was attempting to stop folks from owning guns or take away existing guns. I did take issue with the seeming assumption by many gun owners that they represent a majority viewpoint or position. They often do not. Simply being in the minority does not indicate that one's opinion or viewpoints are any less legitimate or correct. Nor does it necessarily mean that those opinions require any modification or revision. However, it does mean that the existence of another point of view and the potential for that point of view to be in the majority must be seriously considered. I also want to be very clear that the reverse is true - simply being the majority does not give anyone free rein to use it as a megaphone to shout down all other viewpoints.
And to close, I have read a significant number of history books. And to the best of my knowledge there are very few straight line connections between disarm populace and achieve power. The pathways to power and dictatorship are far more complex than that. It saddens me that when the issue started becoming complex and requiring a detailed and nuanced discussion, it seemingly broke down along the traditional line that any attempt to regulate guns is a precursor to tyrannical overthrow of democracy. I might counter that there are several secure and stable democracies that heavily restrict or eliminate the individual ownership of guns that have not devolved into dictatorial police states. But that was never and will never be the point of why I engaged in this conversation. I am unaware of any other stable and well organized country in the world where its children are killed in their schools. We require children to be sent to schools, we must then ensure that it is almost unheard of them to be threatened by violence while there.