I was browsing through google analytics and looking at some of the websites that have sent me traffic flow when I noticed a website called policymic. I had never been there before so I decided to check it out, and was greeted with an opinion article saying how US gun rights advocates had more in common with Hitler than they believed.
Naturally the headliner was incendiary to try an round up some more hits from angry individuals incensed at the utter ludicrousness of the statement. I read the article, honestly it wasn't a bad article considering the topic and intentionally incendiary headline, there was some interesting bit of historical information that I had previously not been awar of, but as some of the commenter's posted below, I think the author missed a major point. (The same online journal also has an article defending the 2nd amendment)
When individuals mention Hitler as an example of gun control it isn't necessarily to try and compare those passing gun restriction, or outright prohibition, to a totalitarian despot; though I know some individuals who would say exactly that, it is to illustrate the potential danger suchs laws entail. The point we are trying to make is the dangerous to ever allow a government entity decide who warrants carrying a weapon and who doesn't. While I am not very sympathetic towards convicted felons, there lies a very real danger of individuals being denied their rights simply because they happen to be at odds with whoever is in charge. Remember, some of the earliest gun control laws in America were laws preventing newly freed blacks from owning firearms. Like it or not, the US, like any other nation, has had a history of oppresive behavior towards select groups in society.
Case and point, the no fly lists. There are people who have been put on the no fly lists who have never had a criminal record, but are suspected of being terrorists. They have little to no recourse, and no one, from the general public, knows what reasons someone lands on said list. It isn't too hard to conceive a list were military styled rifles can be refused to those the government deems 'potentially dangerous'. In fact I think that is what it will happen, and that is the real danger of the Fienstein bill. There is no way, as it is currently written, it will pass. The real danger lies in the little traps that they lay in what ever 'compromise' is made with so called 'republicans'. Our rights may be contingent on whether or not some local official deems us worthy of exercising them.
This is my true fear. Individuals were still able to own firearms in Nazi Germany, but only those the fuher and his cronies deemed good little national socialists. Undesirables like the jews, which the author throws in as if it was just an after thought, gypsies, and political dissidents were denied their rights. While there is no guarantee that things would have been much different if the Jews were armed, but if the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was any indication, it would have been far more difficult for the National Socialists. Let us not ignore that Hitler avoided invading Switzlerland, despite the little nation being entirely ensconsed by the his new reich, because the Swiss were armed to the teeth.
We must never forget. Democratic nations can turn totalitarian. And being a democracy doesn't preclude a nation from acting oppresively to others. We either stand as free men, or kneel as slaves.