Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

MillennialDem

(2,367 posts)
50. Eyeroll: from wiki
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:16 PM
Oct 2015
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. But under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition."[5]
The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[6]
Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[6]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
Manufacture of arms and ammunition continued to require a permit, with the revision that such permits would no longer be issued to Jews or any company part-owned by Jews. Jews were consequently forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[5]
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.


Again, the gun law was weakened. It was strict by US standards, but it was LESS strict than the 1928 law. As for the Jews, there were only ~200,000 in Germany and even if all of them had guns it would have done diddly squat. And what do you think, when it came to a new law to be passed that Hitler would leave the Jews out of it? Everything he did was about oppressing the Jews, Roma, and Communists. So the reality of it: the Germans encircled 600,000 Soviet RED ARMY soldiers near Kiev (among many other large encirclements) and those were trained healthy young men with machine guns, tanks, planes, mortars, artillery, and explosives.

A rag tag group of German Jews would have been squashed like bugs by the Wehrmacht. They had tanks. Let me repeat that: they had tanks. What were they going to do to a tank with rifles and hand guns?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

There is a pesky thing called the 2nd Amendment. DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #1
Lol, ok, how do you determine that? Nt Logical Oct 2015 #3
The same way we determine people aren't robbers and rapists. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #27
We wait LynnTTT Oct 2015 #77
We wait Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #80
... Major Nikon Oct 2015 #75
Also stomping all over the 4th during that confiscation... TipTok Oct 2015 #14
Don't forget about the Fifth (compensation) and Fourteenth (due process). nt branford Oct 2015 #53
I'm not sure that controllers TeddyR Oct 2015 #60
I had a realization earlier... TipTok Oct 2015 #71
No If it became illegal, probable cause would exist. treestar Oct 2015 #85
That is just creepy... TipTok Oct 2015 #98
Wow, not put much thought into this i assume. Nt Logical Oct 2015 #2
Send guys with guns to confiscate all guns. Throd Oct 2015 #4
I see a future in giant C-arms ileus Oct 2015 #54
Consider the logistics and probability of that happening. NightWatcher Oct 2015 #5
It is really loose talk like that kills any chance at meaningful gun control. DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #9
+ 1 Billion!! lancer78 Oct 2015 #39
Considering her history her thoughts were understandable but they aren't helpful. DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #48
Except hers of course... TipTok Oct 2015 #99
I'm wondering if the OP actually belongs here or is stirring up shit. n/t X_Digger Oct 2015 #45
Yep, could be. n/t RKP5637 Oct 2015 #56
+1 DashOneBravo Oct 2015 #83
Works for me. ananda Oct 2015 #6
Automatic weapons were restricted in 1986 Travis_0004 Oct 2015 #30
The restrictions started in 1934 with the passage of the NFA. nt branford Oct 2015 #55
We know what poster meant by "auto." The gun nomenclature game is tiring. Hoyt Oct 2015 #57
Legally and functionally there's a big difference between automatic and semi-automatic firearms. branford Oct 2015 #61
Take it up with Colt. In the meantime, i'm sure your gun clients appreciate Hoyt Oct 2015 #62
My practice doesn't involve firearms and related law. branford Oct 2015 #65
OK, you defend Zimmermans too. Little difference. Hoyt Oct 2015 #68
No, my opinion of Zimmerman is quite poor. branford Oct 2015 #70
And further measures HassleCat Oct 2015 #7
Sorry, this type of reasoning - too extremes packman Oct 2015 #25
Speaking of extreme HassleCat Oct 2015 #28
"Wildly unconstitutional" packman Oct 2015 #33
Unless you believe the Constitution is "Just a God-damned piece of paper" NutmegYankee Oct 2015 #37
Don't interpret my posts with the statements of an idiot packman Oct 2015 #40
Unless being a member of the ACLU is considered extremist... NutmegYankee Oct 2015 #42
Exactly how many times TeddyR Oct 2015 #51
And your point? packman Oct 2015 #69
And speaking of... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #82
No. jwirr Oct 2015 #8
Confiscation won't remove all the guns from civilian hands. Taitertots Oct 2015 #10
Quite true, and all it would do is create a lucrative black market. n/t RKP5637 Oct 2015 #58
Been there done that... LeftyChristian Oct 2015 #11
LOL you get that from NRA talking points? chalmers Oct 2015 #13
Do you dispute these assertions? philosslayer Oct 2015 #21
After a little research treestar Oct 2015 #88
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. LeftyChristian Oct 2015 #22
LOL, did you get that from the Brady Bunch org. talking points? GGJohn Oct 2015 #66
Jesus, why are you even posting on the DU? packman Oct 2015 #34
Absolute Solution LeftyChristian Oct 2015 #43
Except nazi germany actually expanded gun rights. Of course they restricted the jews and MillennialDem Oct 2015 #36
Not my list LeftyChristian Oct 2015 #46
Eyeroll: from wiki MillennialDem Oct 2015 #50
What is your point? LeftyChristian Oct 2015 #95
False dichotomy. You can fight without a gun and you can be taken captive even with one. And MillennialDem Oct 2015 #96
Exactly, we have an Equal Protection Clause treestar Oct 2015 #87
Who was exterminated in Australia? treestar Oct 2015 #86
And this is the guy to do it sarisataka Oct 2015 #12
We'll call this "Project: Prison Population Explosion." Dr. Strange Oct 2015 #15
Also likely to be called Police Reduction Program dumbcat Oct 2015 #32
It's hard to have a real rational discussion on this topic... NutmegYankee Oct 2015 #38
Good luck with that. There is that pesky little thing The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2015 #16
Enforce the 2nd Amendment! Like the NRA says, just enforce the laws we have! flamin lib Oct 2015 #17
Within the week JackInGreen Oct 2015 #79
Notice these pencil dick losers workinclasszero Oct 2015 #90
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. - H.L. Mencken nt Xipe Totec Oct 2015 #18
That would cause a civil war LittleBlue Oct 2015 #19
Maybe guns should be issued to everybody, including children, then at designated moment point the Lint Head Oct 2015 #20
Talk about giving the Alex Jones conspiracy wackos the ultimate Christmas present. Monk06 Oct 2015 #23
That's tyranny. Like the misinterpreted Second Amendment is tyranny on the majority of Americans. onehandle Oct 2015 #24
There's 200 million of them. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #26
Do you comprehend the results of that? WDIM Oct 2015 #29
There would be a mass ignoring of the law krispos42 Oct 2015 #59
This is not a good idea, Blue_In_AK Oct 2015 #31
And how, specifically, do you suggest they do that? Lizzie Poppet Oct 2015 #35
nope Angry Dragon Oct 2015 #41
The Federal government needs to ban all alcohol and drugs. pablo_marmol Oct 2015 #44
It worked in Australia librechik Oct 2015 #47
Australia did not ban guns. There are plenty of guns in Australia hack89 Oct 2015 #49
No one will ever die again. ileus Oct 2015 #52
What a moronic thread. GGJohn Oct 2015 #63
Not a deep thinker are you. eom. GGJohn Oct 2015 #64
Do you also propose to completely secure the borders? BOTH of them? cherokeeprogressive Oct 2015 #67
Yeah, who needs that pesky Constitution? ladyVet Oct 2015 #72
Earlier this week a different poster the Constitution was described as "yellowing parchment" Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #73
It's not credible that would be the result treestar Oct 2015 #89
Thanks for helping pro gun advocates like myself. Kang Colby Oct 2015 #74
It's only a matter of time before the roundup begins. cheapdate Oct 2015 #76
Yes chalmers JackInGreen Oct 2015 #78
I still think a license for each weapon is the way to go. LiberalArkie Oct 2015 #81
I have 4 vehicles but only one license. oneshooter Oct 2015 #92
That is the license I am talking about. Most people have different licenses for each vehicle. LiberalArkie Oct 2015 #94
Licenses are generally for public use, not for simple ownership. beevul Oct 2015 #97
I wish there was a way treestar Oct 2015 #84
This solution is exactly what the NRA is using to fight gun jwirr Oct 2015 #91
Federal government needs to confiscate all automobiles workinclasszero Oct 2015 #93
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Federal government ne...»Reply #50