So.... Cracked doesn't think Nazi gun control was "real" gun control"

Yeah..... they try to go after the Nazis s on gun control.

Guns can help stop a tyrannical dictator, and since every president gets compared to Hitler, it wouldn't be a bad idea to stock up, right?

Gee Cracked, which publications help push that narrative?

Truth: Gun Laws Became More Lenient Leading Up To The Holocaust
All German gun ownership was banned after World War I, but in 1928, Germany passed the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. It loosened gun regulations, but permits were needed, and all new gun purchases had to be registered. However, plenty of Germans, including Jewish citizens, just held onto their guns from World War I, so those went unregistered.

So... total civilian ownership ban to....  some ownership with full registration.  But... people would illegally ignore the registry?  (Note, that this myth isn't about Nazi gun control, but about the Jews being able to overthrow the Nazis)

It is true that when the Nazis came to power, they sought to strip Jews, communists, union leaders, and other enemies of their guns with the help of the registry, but that registry was so incomplete that many Jews held onto their guns well into the late 1930s. In 1938, Hitler further deregulated guns with the German Weapons Act, which exempted Nazi Party members from most regulations and lowered the legal age to own a gun from 20 to 18. At this point, they were essentially handing out firearms to whoever looked the least "exotic."

So... the registry wasn't effective because people, for some reason, didn't register their guns. The article also makes it seem like the registry being incomplete means that it's not "real gun control", somehow.  And the Nazis were giving guns.. only to party members and  people who weren't minorities. That's still some really nasty gun control.

Hell... that paragraph admits a "no guns for you".

But again...  so far the article is admitting that the Nazis specifically tried to disarm the Jews.  Which... isn't really the point.

The 1938 law did strip Jewish citizens of their guns, but that's an indictment of targeting specific demographics, not gun policy. Even for Jewish citizens who held onto their guns, a couple rifles wouldn't do much good when an entire army came to their doors. Remember, lax gun laws mean that the people who hate you have easy access to guns too. 

Well...  given in this case the  Nazis had the laws so Jews couldn't have them but their party members could. And it's not... about gun policy?  Oh,  okay.  That's literally the law setup making it so your enemies could get guns while you could not.

And finally one gets to "how much could armed Jews do".  Instead of the article's creepy tone of "Oh sure the Nazis tried to disarm Jews but that wasn't gun policy and Jews could ignore the law anyway!"


Again, it's... funny as all of the above paragraphs are... superfluous because the myth the writer is bashing was not "Did the Nazis disarm Jews" but "Would armed Jews have been a able to stop the Nazis?"

And that kinda takes just one paragraph

The French alone had 900,000 soldiers and 5 million reservists, but who'da thunk it, it's tough to stop an entire army bent on ethnic cleansing. Some Jews staged effective resistance efforts, but expecting them to have stopped the Nazis in their tracks would be like expecting a dozen guys at your local shooting range to stand a chance against a marine battalion. Regardless of your stance on guns, saying that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust if only they'd had more firepower is sleazy victim-blaming that historians have dismissed as "preposterous."

Victim-blaming?  That's ironic because that's proceed by this image caption:  "Plus there was one notable time Jews got their hands on a bunch of weapons. It didn't go well."
That sounds pretty victim blaming to me.

Let's never-mind the amount of forces the Nazis committed to he Warsaw Uprising . And that if there were a dozen of them the Nazis would have been in a worse spot.

Annnd let's ignore the question of if they knew the Nazis were going to kill them anyway, which way would they want to go out?

Maybe instead of spending time writing an... apologia for Nazi gun control laws,  Cracked would have spent more time wondering why the Nazis focused on seeking"to strip Jews, communists, union leaders, and other enemies of their guns with the help of the registry" while making it easier for Nazi party members to get guns.

Or at least admitting that a full and complete registry of guns does make it easier for a dictator to round up gun owners from groups he doesn't like.  And that incompleteness of said registry can stymie the dictator's efforts.

Or that a registry of guns  can and will be abused by an upcoming dictator?

Nah.



But we can see why the cracked writing staff can, by and large, support two ideas.  The first that Trump is a massive danger, out of line with traditional presidential norms, and willing to give support to his racist, corrupt supporters while punishing his enemies,  and the second that there should be a lot more gun control at the federal level, even if Trump is the one administering it.

Unfortunately, Cracked went about this by taking the above attitude towards Nazi gun control.
Namely that yes, it was specifically confiscatory towards "enemies of the state" and Party Members were lavished with guns. 

But since the registry was incomplete and the confiscation missed people, and more importantly, the upcoming fascist stat was so powerful, it didn't matter what the Resistance did and thus the Gun Control efforts weren't a bad thing in as much as they were pointless.

That's...  not the best way to square that circle. 

But gives some real gallows humor whenever Cracked advocates for the current #Resistance against Trump.

Hypotheticals.

Let's say someone, Person 1 is an advocate against the evils of X.

And said person been writing about the prevalence of X and people who are doing it.

Then it comes out that a friend, associate, or even another writer our Person 1 is a fan of (we'll term him/her as Person 2), has been accused of doing X.  And there's evidence of it.  X isn't criminal but it is a major social faux-pas.

Now there is a tendency for Person 1 to go "Well that's different!" "That was satire!"  "Person 2 doesn't think that way!" "That wasn't /really/ X!"     A lot of it doesn't even have to be naked partisan/tribal/whatever bias.

A lot can simply be "I know Person 2, thus I can make a better judgment on the totality of their actions".  Then add in that if Person 1 is predisposed to thinking favorably of Person 2....

Or that while Person 1 is an advocate against X but they think the punishment being demanded of Person 2 is inappropriate.  

There's a lot of subtleties that can be put into a how someone can react in a way that can seem like "It's different when /we/ do it!"

Now add in that Person 1 makes a point of "General internet people don't get to demand what I write about, who I debate and what issues I deal with."

Which is completely fair.

Though it still makes one wonder if Person 1 has.... blind spots about Issue X.


But then comes along Person 3.  

Person 3 (another writer and advocate) makes a debate challenge (on the subject of Y) to Person 4 (a politician).   Person 4 declines.   Person 3 has a snarky response.

And Person 1 jumps in with "Why are you going after Person 4!  You should be debating these other politicians about the evils of X!"

Which is....  delicious in its way.


Such a chain of events would make one wonder if Person 1 is having some deflection issues.  And while they may be sincere about their advocacy against X,  they may also be more than willing to use it as a bludgeon against rivals (who are not advocating X), while excusing the behavior of allies (who may be advocating X).

In short:  "It's different when we do it."