Famed 2nd Amendment lawyer Compares Hitler to Obama

court

Stephen Halbrook, famed 2nd Amendment lawyer, with a 4-0 record in cases tried before the Supreme Court, has written a new book about how Hitler disarmed the Jews and other enemies, using gun registration lists, and he compares that to the Obama regime’s plan on gun control.  “Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the  Jews and ‘Enemies of the State‘,” is the name of the book and it explores gun control before and after Hitler came into power.  Halbrook points out parallels and comparisons between Hitler’s policies and those of today.

“Actually, there are parallels between the firearm bans and registration  requirements enacted by the Weimar Republic and those proposed by President  Obama.  Only law-abiding persons obeyed  those laws. Weimar authorities warned that the lists of gun owners must not fall  into the hands of ‘radical elements.’ The lists fell right into the hands of the  Nazis when they assumed power. Gun owner data can be misused by the government  today just as it did in the IRS scandal, and it can be hacked for nefarious  purposes.”

He added, “That said, comparisons to Nazi Germany are unjustified in a society  where a free press and free elections remain, and no one is being herded into  death camps.” (Yet)

“What historians deem ‘significant’ reflects both their value judgments and what  information is available.  The disarming of the Jews and other  ‘enemies of the state’ was widely reported when it occurred. Historians failed  to pursue the topic or the rich history I located in the German archives. By  contrast, numerous histories of resistance movements in the occupied countries  reflect the desperate need for arms. First-hand accounts of the Warsaw Ghetto  Uprising are an inspiring tribute of how armed Jewish resisters fought the  Nazis.”

When the Daily Caller pressed him on whether it would have made much difference since the Nazis were so well armed, Halbrook replied that it might have made a difference in individual cases and maybe for some small groups.

“Had the Jews not been disarmed, they would have had a better chance to resist  and survive, even if only in individual cases or in groups.  The  broader question is whether anything would have been different if Germany had  constitutional traditions similar to the American Bill of Rights and the  engagement of the population in exercising these rights, such as a free press  and having arms. Even aside from the initial disarming of democratic elements  before the general disarming of the Jews, the fanatical disarming of the Jews  alone demonstrated that the Nazi regime considered them a threat. Armed Jews and  political opponents may have been able to resist arrest and deportation in some  cases.”

When asked why he wrote the book, Halbrook replied:

Hitler disarmed the Jews and “enemies of the state” — political opponents — in  order to consolidate his dictatorship and preempt opposition to his ruthless  policies. My previous books concern how oppressive governments sought to disarm  populaces in order to oppress them. The British attempted to do so to the  Americans who fought back with an armed Revolution, which was the impetus for  the Second Amendment. After the Civil War, the Southern States sought to  continue the slave code provisions prohibiting gun possession by blacks, which  became a major issue in the civil rights struggle during Reconstruction. My new  book focuses on this universal phenomena during one of the most brutal periods  of history.

Would be dictators and tyrants always go after guns and religion first.

 

  • Carolyn Shive Smith

    Someone halfway in control needs to do something immediately!