As expected, the Second Amendment has become a talking point among conservatives again since the recent shooting that took place at Ft. Hood. Among my readings, however, is an open letter titled Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned, apparently penned at the hands of Green Berets, either retired or on active duty, amassing an estimated 1100 signatures so far. This letter originated in January of 2013, or so I can find, and therefore tackles a number of relevant topical issues that seem to be hashed about with regards to the gun debate.
While the author states that the letter is intended to reshape the debate on gun control, it does nothing of the sort, and instead follows along the same conservative, NRA (National Rifle Association) route of information, leading to the same conclusion. There is merit to various points, of course, but there are also critiques to be made. If anything, this open letter serves as a good example of the tenacious and insidious trends that seem to create the foundation of the gun debate as a whole. Rather than conservatives and liberals having an educated, pragmatic discussion on the issue of gun regulation, it’s a liberal defense against pro-fascist and pro-communist claims. This context doesn’t do anything but facilitate anger, frustration, and anti-insert regime name here sentiments. Frankly, it’ll be a long time before we see any legitimately useful federal legislation with respect to gun control, and while that might be the case, it’s also important to note the debate surrounding federal and state government sovereignty with this issue as well.
I’ll be using this letter as a focal point for my critique.
On Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Tyranny and rise to Power:
In my very firm opinion, there’s something particularly insidious about 1,100 Green Berets perpetuating this line of thinking. It isn’t about tyranny, indeed the Merriam-Webster definition of a tyrant is “a ruler who has complete power over a country and who is cruel and unfair.” What it’s about is this idea that only the three words stated above are possibly tyrants.
“Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.”
I’ll always find quarrel with any reference to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, in any discussion in context of gun control. It isn’t because I lean left political, but because it’s historically skewed, and from a scientific point of view a causal relationship being made whereupon there’s no genuine basis to stake such a claim. Referencing them doesn’t do anything more than facilitate a continued anti-communist, anti-fascist, and anti-socialist personification.
I’ll outline below the historical facts.
To be clear, however, my perspective is that the quote above serves as a wonderful example of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Literally translated as “after this, therefore because of this,” the quote above over simplifies comparative political, economic, and historical components by suggesting that strict gun control laws were the causal factor determining each event. For one, history seems to suggest that in some cases, gun laws didn’t precede, or even proceed after the immediate ascension of these leaders. Indeed, gun control either wasn’t a factor with respect to the regime in control, and even if it was, it wasn’t a big enough factor that could have altered the eventual outcome.
Hitler, and Germany
Bernard E. Harcourt does a good job in explaining the history, for which you can read his paper On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians), which you can read by clicking here.
But, for your sake, I’ll try to sum it all up. At the end of World War I, Germany fell into a civil conflict now referred to as the German Revolution. Between November 1918 and August 1919 in which the Free Socialist Republican of Germany, consisting of the Communist Party of Germany, Bavarian Soviet Republic, and Free Workers’ Union clashed with the Imperial German Army and the Weimar Republic. Without delving too deeply into this façade, the Weimar Constitution was adopted in on August 11th, 1919. After this, radical left and right wing revolutionaries continued to duke it out. But even during this revolution, laws had been passed in January of 1919 that banned the possession of guns. Later, the Weimar Republic signed the Treaty of Versailles, with much disagreement to various stipulations, particularly the War Guilt Clause. But more to the point here, Articles 159-213 specifically detailed the disarmament of the German Military, and the destruction of all arms. In order to follow the guiltiness set forth by the treaty, the parliament passed the Regulation on Weapon Ownership that essentially banned all gun ownership. The next year, the Law on the Disarmament of the People was passed. It wasn’t until 1928 that the Law on Firearms and Ammunition was passed in which people could obtain weapons, but only after going through a particularly strict licensing process, much to the efforts of the Socialists and Communists in parliament that were eager to win against a failing conservative faction. This law required a permit to obtain a firearm, and yet another permit to carry it.
What’s important here, though, is the context of these laws. First, these laws were in one sense an attempt to portray the demands of the Treaty of Versailles. The Weimar Republic didn’t actually meat all of the demands set forth, much to the advantage of Hitler later on. Second, there was a lot of concern during the Weimar Republic’s reign of a government takeover, as there were a lot of political fights taking place between socialist factions, Communists, and Fascists. Indeed, Hitler attempted a coup in Munich in 1923. What this means, in effect, is that Hitler didn’t take people’s guns away as many pro-gun enthusiasts proclaim, indeed his own government did so prior to his coming to power. It’s a likelihood that those strict gun laws were put in place to prevent people like Hitler from coming to power. But it wasn’t just Hitler that they were trying to protect against. The Nazi Party wasn’t even recognized until the German Referendum of 1929, and between the mid 1920’s, and Hitler’s ascension in 1933, there were a lot of street battles going on. [1][2]
While this might be a testament to the ineffectiveness of gun laws, it’s important to note that by the time Hitler came to power, gun laws had become slightly more relaxed. Even more important to this whole discussion is that the events that took place between 1919 and 1933 are particularly complex, and to place all blame on Hitler for gun control oversimplifies the whole matter. Furthermore, it reduces Hitler’s tactics to a bare minimum. Hitler’s rise to power was a tactical one, using both terrorism and propaganda. But in the end, Hitler won the vote, and effectively was handed the dictatorship after many years of clashing with Communists. But what made him attractive as a leader was that unlike the Weimar Republic, Hitler outright ignored the Treaty of Versailles, and actively fought against it. By 1932, just three years after becoming recognized as an official party, the Nazi’s became the largest party in Germany.
Moving back to gun laws, though, many seem to suggest that Hitler’s first move was to ban guns. Not only is this line of thinking marred by 14 years of prior legislation, but Hitler didn’t tackle gun laws until 1938, some five years after having come to power, when he signed the German Weapons Act. This law reduced some restrictions, maintained other restrictions, and also made new ones. In effect, the pro-gun arguments that Hitler banned guns is outright false, indeed, it’s propaganda. That being said, this law completely deregulated how people could acquire ammunition, rifles, and shotguns, it lowered the purchasing age from 20 to 18, valid permits were extended to last from 1 year to 3 years. Furthermore, whereas the previous law had allowed only government officials and police to be exempt, now hunters, government workers, and party members were exempt. Where things did get tighter, however, were on Jews, who were not only barred from owning, or possessing firearm, but also manufacturing or selling them, along with any other “dangerous” weapon. Later that year, the Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons was put into effect that furthered the endeavor to deprive Jews of weapons and firearms.
More to the complexity of this matter, though, is that the 1938 law had been proposed in 1933, 1935, and 1937, and failed because of ideological concerns. In order for the law to be effective, they needed the general population to not only be treated as faithful, but to also outline who the enemy of the state would be – the Jews.
In any case, Harcourt sums it up pretty well by saying:
“In order to disarm Jewish persons, the Nazi government used both the “trustworthiness” requirements originally legislated in 1928, as well as more direct regulations denying Jews the right to manufacture or possess firearms. It is absurd to even try to characterize this as either pro- or anti-gun control. But if forced to, I would have to conclude, at least preliminarily from this straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation, that the Nazis favored less gun control for the “trustworthy” German citizen than the predecessor Weimar Republic, while disarming the Jewish population and engaging in genocide.” (Pg. 677).
Harcourt also equates much of Nazi references to the culture war, and to this point I also most certainly agree. When the NRA references Hitler, Mao, or other classified tyrants, it is nothing more than propaganda – indeed, it’s not too different than the same people cited in opposition and how they rose to power. But what really needs to be taken from this is that any conversation on gun control needs to be a pragmatic one, not just a philosophical one. Hitler’s approach was both liberalizing and restrictive, but in two different contexts, and very targeted.
Stalin, and the Soviet Union
When citing a historical figure, or a country, in context to any debate it’s important to look at the whole picture and not just a small part. For this reason, it should be stated that most Russians more than likely were too poor to buy weapons with the exception of a hunting rifle, and to that extent it was meant for the livelihood of the person prior to and during the revolutions that took place during that time. To suggest that guns were stripped from the people suggests that they already had a right to them. Regardless of this, one particular claim has been circulating for quite some time as part of a longer letter, but with respect to the Soviet Union, it goes like this:
“In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.”
This notion, that liberal gun laws would have prevented this from happening, is pretty degrading to what happened. For one thing, the Ukrainian Famine, or Holodomor (which is literally translated as “plague of hunger”), had little to do with guns. Instead, some 3-5 million starved to death. A similar event occurred in 1921 during the reign of the Bolshevik’s. It should be noted that there is a lot of political and historical debate as to whether or not Holodomor constitutes a genocide, as the term is poorly defined. Regardless of this, strict vs lax gun laws did little to prevent it from happening, and would have done little to stop it. Stalin killed a lot of people. That’s certainly true.
Still, I can’t seem to find any legitimate historical references to either the Bolshevik’s or Stalin passing laws and regulations that subsequently tightened gun laws, or took guns from the general populace. It’s for this reason that I feel compelled to disregard the reference.
That being said, I will quote Karl Marx in his 1850 Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League:
“To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.”
I emphasize the important sentence, but quoted the whole paragraph for context. I show this for the very clear purposes of inciting a thought process. How is Marx’ quote above any different from the line of reasoning that pro-gun enthusiasts use against gun control? And why would they be against Communism when the founding father agrees with ownership of weapons? While contexts are quite different, the underlying basic principle is the same: defense of freedom. While this can lead to a major debate, I feel the point should be made.
Mao, and China
Based on one source by Huan Zhu, three laws have been passed in China since 1952 (again in 1988, and then in 1996), with the current legal standing based on a law passed in 1996. A little conflicting, however, comes from Asian Times, in which Mitch Moxley states:
“China introduced gun control in 1966, after children armed with rifles shot out a window at the Great Hall of the People at the Tiananmen Square in Beijing while trying to hit a sparrow, according to official MPS history. The government cracked down harder on gun ownership after the 1989 pro- democracy demonstrations.”
In any case, there were Communist conflicts between Korea and Japan, and for this reason there was a necessity to arm citizens. In fact, the Chinese suffered from mass casualties because their weapons were not as well off as their opponents’.
To be clear, it’s difficult to find any information on gun laws in China, or Russia, during the times of Mao and Stalin. To use either as an example of the necessity of guns does nothing more than prove a campaign of propaganda and fear mongering, than it does to serve a legitimate stance on individual liberty.
Britain
To quote Harcourt once more:
“Anglo-American tradition of gun registration dates back to seventeenth-century England. Both prior to and after the adoption of the English Bill of Rights, there were a number of gun regulations in place in England, including registration requirements.33 In 1660, for instance, all gunsmiths were ordered to produce a record of all firearms they had sold and of all their buyers from the past six months.’ Gunsmiths were then required to report this information weekly.35 These requirements-which constitute the first known gun registration scheme-remained in place after the adoption of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which declared that “the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law. ‘3 6 Prior and subsequent English history reflects a long and steady tradition of substantial statutory limitations on gun ownership.” (Pg. 662).
English restrictions get pretty deep, and widespread, of course, and later on they attempt to restrict the U.S. from weapons, particularly gunpowder, and increasingly create registries, and lists, etc.
I have little quarrel with a pro-right enthusiast citing English attempts to prevent private ownership of a weapon, because that is inherently tied to our history. That being said, it’s still not a fool-proof argument to lean on, because in the end, there’s also hundreds of years of history.
There’s also the sad fact that gun control was also heavily tied to racial issues. For the same reason that England attempted to prevent us from being armed, we prevented slaves from being armed – rebellion. The prevention of rebellion is something that every regime, country, or organization attempts to not only crush, but prevent. Indeed it is in the best interest of the people in power to prevent rather than crush a rebellion in the grand scheme of things.
This point leads to a very lengthy conversation on the pervasive and pernicious engendered and racial attitudes when it comes to the entire gun debate as a whole, not just with the right to ownership, but when it bleeds over into crime. To conclude this section, I feel the need to say that it is important that tyranny comes in many shapes and tastes, and it seems to me a bit tyrannical, if only in a political sense, to restrict research into the effectiveness of gun laws on gun crimes, something that the NRA has done for many, many years. It also seems a bit ruthless to consistently equate tyranny to any philosophical conception that isn’t in line with capitalism.
Willis and law Online 