In 1938 the Nazis passed the "Nazi Weapons Act of
1938". People who seek to use the Nazis as the bogeymen of Gun Control
will tell you that it was a restriction on guns used to further solidify their
power. There's a lot of things there that they're ignoring, facts about history
that they're pretending don't exist in order to further their political
ideology. Something I expect they have in common with the Nazis.
First, firearms were heavily regulated in Germany at the
time the Nazis came to power. After Germany lost WW1, firearms ownership was
sharply restricted in accordance with the treaty of Versailles. The 1919 “Regulations
on Weapons Ownership” (Verordnung des Rates der Volksbeauftragen über
Waffenbesitz, Reichsgesetzblatt 1919, Volume I, § 1, page 31–32) required that
all firearms, and all kinds of firearms ammunition, be surrendered immediately.
Anyone possessing firearms was subject to five years imprisonment and a fine of
100,000 marks. This was made law as a result of conditioned we imposed on
Germany after they lost World War 1. Military weapons were further restricted
in 1920, in accordance with the treaty.
Gun control laws were actually loosened by later laws passed
by the Germans. The 1928 “Law on Firearms and Ammunition” rolled back the 1919
law which explicitly banned all private gun ownership. It relaxed gun
restrictions, and allowed private persons to possess firearms. However, they
had to have separate permits to own or sell firearms, carry firearms,
manufacture firearms, or deal in firearms and ammunition. It gave discretion in
issuing licenses to the issuing authority, what we’d know in the US as “may
issue” instead of “shall issue”, and licenses were only available to “persons
of unquestioned trustworthiness” (Halbrook, Stephen P. (2000) "Nazi
Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews."). Even so, this was a
loosening of restrictions from the post-WW1 law which said “nobody can own guns”.
Supporters of unrestricted gun ownership are fond of
pointing out that the Nazis passed a gun control law in 1938. Yes, they did, it
was called the German Weapons Act. What this act did is that, for specific
people, it reduced gun controls in place from the 1928 and 1919 laws. It
removed restrictions on rifles, shotguns, and on ammunition, only keeping restrictions
in place for handguns. In the 1928 law, only a handful of people were exempt
from needing firearms acquisitions permits. The 1938 law expanded exemptions,
to anyone who held hunting permits, government workers, and members of the Nazi
Party, making it easier for these individuals to obtain firearms.
Gun ownership ages were lowered by the 1938 law, from 20 to
18. This is often misrepresented by gun control opponents, who say the 1938 law
“restricted gun ownership to people 18 and older”. Heck, our laws do that now,
because it’s widely considered a bad idea for children to own guns. Additionally,
the carry permit for firearms had its effective term increased from one year to
three years. It was a law intended to make it easier for the right kind of people, young military-age Germans (preferably Nazi Party members) to own guns.
The only element of the 1938 law that restricted gun
ownership was that it prohibited Jews from manufacturing or owning firearms or
ammunition. This really didn’t make much of a difference. Kristallnacht had
already happened; tens of thousands of Jews were already being sent to the
concentration camps or, if lucky, deported out of Reich-controlled territory.
Faced with the military power of the Third Reich, a few civilian-level rifles
and pistols would not and did not make that much difference. A handful of armed
Jews and Poles in the Warsaw ghettos put up quite a little fight… but
ultimately the side with *flamethrowers* won, the ghettos were razed, and a
concentration camp put up in their place.
Yes, the Nazis imposed brutal restrictions on gun ownership
in the countries they conquered. Believe me, we’re not gentle about firearms
ownership in Afghanistan, nor were we in Iraq during the invasion and
occupation there. Of course a conquering power disarms the people it conquers.
Losing sides in wars are disarmed by the winning side. We did the same thing to
the Germans after WW1 (Treaty of Versailles: Articles 159-213; Military, Naval,
and Air Clauses) and WW2. It is utterly irrelevant to whether or not gun
control laws are a symbol of creeping totalitarianism.
And really, that’s the whole point of this. Totalitarian
governments arise on the backs of popular movements. Tyrants are given the
reins of the state by the people of that state, the military is given power by
the people of the state, and then that power is used towards ill ends. Whether
or not gun ownership is present and widespread, or heavily restricted and
controlled, makes little difference one way or the other.
During the time of the American Revolution, military equipment
was effectively uniform. Nothing more than cannons and muskets, on both sides.
These weapons were relatively simple for a decently-sized community to produce
and support. The Civil War was the first war where divergent levels of military
technology really made a difference, with the Sharps Rifle and the Henry
Repeating Rifle showing up the more primitive arms used by the Confederacy.
However, the First World War heralded military technology that made the reality
of gun ownership as it relates to opposing a government completely irrelevant.
You will not stand against even a WW1 era military with
personal small arms. That doesn’t work against air power, and it doesn’t work
against tanks or against flamethrowers. Guerilla warfare is possible, but
really hit or miss on if it will be successful, and it rarely manages to
overthrow a government without significant support from large sections of the
military, or in countries without a powerful or effective military. Modern
military technology means that the military in nearly any country has
phenomenal power, more than any individual or group of private citizens could
have, and if you do not have them on your side, you will lose, and if you do
have them on your side, you get your arms from them and yours don’t matter too
much anyway.
In countries with a military that does not defect to the
rebels, rebellions are crushed. And they are crushed brutally. Examples include
the United Liberation Front of Assam in India and the Zapatista uprising in
Mexico. Some examples where military defection led to a successful revolution include
the Romanian Revolution of 1989 and the Indonesian Revolution of 1998, both of
which succeeded due to a split military. most recently, the revolution in Libya succeeded due to defections from the military, and also because of foreign military support from NATO.
This is not an argument for gun control, it is an argument
against those arguments that oppose gun control on the grounds that it would
facilitate a totalitarian dictatorship, and who say that gun ownership protects
against tyranny. There are plenty of
other reasons to own guns, but the best argument for ownership of, say,
semiautomatic military styled rifles, is to defend yourself on an individual
level in the event of a temporary or long term breakdown of social order and
law. You will not stand up to a modern military with an M4. You will, however,
be able to stand up to groups of organized looters or other bandits. And with
the rise in weather related disasters, things like Hurricane Sandy and
Hurricane Katrina, or massive blackouts from winter storms, having that capacity
can come in very handy.
Whether or not this potential use outweighs the very real spree killings involving these particular types of firearms will be a matter for us to debate and legislate as a democratic society. No matter what happens, it won't have nearly as much bearing on the rise or success of a dictatorship as restrictions on free speech, the elimination of personal privacy, and the rise of a pervasive surveillance state. An ever-present police state and dramatically skewed and unfair legal system is a much greater tool of tyranny than gun control laws could ever hope to be, and gun control is often secondary to the goals of tyrants.
