Did Hitler Say “To Conquer a Nation, First Disarm its Citizens”?

A common - and controversial - quote attributed to Adolf Hitler states: "To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens." This quote is often cited amid gun control debates. But did Hitler actually speak these words?

Sponsored links


It’s unclear if Hitler spoke those exact words, but he did express the sentiment.

A variation of the quote often reads, “To conquer a nation, one must first disarm its citizens.”

A 2012 Newsday op-ed entitled, “Misinformation: Did Hitler say “one must first disarm citizens” to control a nation?” sought to dispel rumors that the quote originated from Hitler, offering its absence from internet searches as proof. While a direct citation does seem lacking, such absence neither confirms or denies the source of the quote. The original source cannot be found, Hitler or otherwise.

There are, however, verifiable Hitler statements which very closely echo the sentiment of the quote in question. These can be found in Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations with the English translation copyrighted 1953 by Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Consider this often-cited passage, from Part Three: 6 February – 7 September 1942:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police.

There is another passage from the same book with perhaps an even closer resemblance to the quote in question. This quote is referenced on page xxxii of a preface of the 2008 edition from Enigma Books entitled “The Mind of Adolf Hitler” by H.R. Trevor-Roper. It isn’t clear whether this is a separate quote, or merely a different translation of the second sentence in the quote above. It states, “History teaches us that all master races have declined once they consented to arm the peoples they had conquered.”

The quote in question is often accompanied by a date of 1933, although occasionally other years are also used. Again, we have no evidence of the direct Hitler quote, so the year included cannot be verified either. If, however, the quote was derived from those included in the Table Talk passages, then the year should read 1942, not 1933.

Sponsored Links


During our research, a few readers suggested to us that the quote may have been originally spoken by Nazi Propaganda Minster Joseph Goebbels, but once again there have been fruitless attempts to find the quote directly attributed to him or anyone else.

Another Theory

We did find one suggestion which put a new spin on the quote above. This quote read, “To conquer a nation, one must first disarm its citizens by re-inventing their collective memory of the past,” and attributed to Goebbels. If this is in fact the sentiment of the actual quote, then “disarm” takes on an entirely new meaning. Once again, we can’t find original sources or citations for this variant.

1938 Nazi Gun Laws

If one looks closely at the quotes above, the quote in question, and the 1938 Nazi gun laws, it becomes apparent that the quote is most likely aimed at restrictions placed upon Jews at the time. The use of the word “conquer” likely didn’t refer to those citizens with which Hitler identified, but of a population he wished to vanquish, and to remove their rights to bear arms. In fact, the 1938 German Weapons Act actually lowered the age upon which German citizens could own firearms, but essentially stripped Jews of any rights to own firearms.

Google Trends

The chart below from Google Trends shows that interest in the quote began in July 2012, peaked in January 2013, and subsided by April 2013. The quote is still discussed, but at a much lower volume than the surge of 2012 and 2013.

Bottom Line

We could find no evidence that the exact quote can be attributed to Adolf Hitler, nor could we disprove that he said it. If Hitler isn’t responsible for the exact quote, it’s possible that it was derived from words Hitler did speak, such as those cited above. It could also be the work of a very liberal translation, which is why finding an original source is so elusive.

It is likely that the context of the quote was directed specifically at Jews – perhaps as Hitler’s argument to remove their right to bear arms. History has shown that Hitler sought to conquer and disarm Jews, who were in fact banned from owning guns by Nazi laws passed in 1938, while Hitler’s own “master race” actually enjoyed more relaxed gun laws in the same legislation.

Your Turn

If you have any insight as to the origin of the quote in question, please drop us a comment below.

Updated October 30, 2014
Originally published December 2012

Sponsored links




47 Comments on Did Hitler Say “To Conquer a Nation, First Disarm its Citizens”?

  1. His Royal Majesty // October 16, 2013 at 1:08 pm // Reply

    Dear Agent J,
    A great many of your so called gun nuts may have never touched a weapon until they reached boot camp. If the U.S. spends what it spends on DEFENSE then what should that tell you? If you follow the leader of the “free world’, then you would have to agree that in order to keep you, yours, your home and other ‘hard work’ aquired amenities safe you might want to be prepared to defend them. I believe in God, the church I grew up in taught us to watch as well as pray. History teaches us that some GOVERNMENTS have, will and do turn against it’s own people. What is the police response time where you live? My firearms instructor Kent Turnipseed once posed this question- How much damage could one person with ample ammunition and 3 minutes do? If you take a watch and time that saying bang,bang, bang every time you pull an imaginary trigger…you will find that a lot of damage can be done. If you don’t live in Beverly Hills where the response time use to be less than 3, do you really want to have to wait in the closet hoping they arrive in time? And what about the law suits where people sued for lack of adequate protection and the courts articulated that the police have no true responsibility to protect you as an individual. Isn’t it somewhat hypocritical to send our loved ones to foreign locations to keep the peace and ask us to remain at home without the ability to do so? Whether Black Budgets or tax dollars, isn’t hypocritical to bomb someone elses country and then want to give them aid to rebuild, providing the right person in installed and have people living on the street and in shelters in the “greatest country in the world.” Talk about PR, the greatest is 25th in education and 50% is probably low for the divorce rate. We the people have a lot of work to do, yet the incentive is being steer away from collective effort into individualism [see the Illumicorp Training Video]. We are lied to [see the video Ex-IRS Agent Tells It Like It Is] and then they want to make you think you are the crazy one. How is it that the Swiss government sponsors annually that all able bodied citizens keep up their shooting skills and the sheep in the U.S. are telling people to trust their very lives to someone us. Daily people are incarcerated for Murder, Rape of Women, Rape of Children, Bank Robbery and the like…has the sentence of long term incarceration or the death penalty stopped any of this…hmmm? I don’t want your wife or your daughter assaulted,by you, by home invaders, by a thug[s] walking down the street. Nor do I want a knife, machette, or a samurai sword weilding nut to attack you or your in Kmart and not one person has the balls to even throw can goods at him. I don’t want a van to wisk by and scoop you wife or daughter up and somehow get them out of the country unnoticed and sell them into slavery. So if I am trained, armed, vigilant and should a crisis occur ready, able and willing to suppress the wolf as a Sheep Dog should – don’t restrict me from the tools at which to do it.

    I am a good negotiator, I have talked people down and help prevent jumpers and others whom where at the edge of their wits. Yet, until the world learns to mediate, negotiation, to think through their issues and as the Bible says, “LOVE ONE ANOTHER” – then I for one would like the options of not just self-defense, but self-preservation along with other people whom given a choice would rather live in heaven or earth versus dying a cruel death. For those of us whom believe in Heaven and being at the right hand of God upon the last breath of this human experience…isn’t is selfish and hypocritical not to want the best outcome for you as well.

    Hitler it seems was not the only person who didn’t want the best for all people.
    Idi Amin it seems was not the only person who didn’t want the best for all people.

    I don’t want any person who professes to love people or the United States to become one of those persons who didn’t want the best for ALL people.

  2. Many rulers think about this in even further extent: They also want to deprive people of deeper knowledge, and of means to keep themselves perfeectly healthy.

  3. If you even use “Table Talk” as a source, then you’ve discredited yourself, because Historians have found that book to be false. Hitler didn’t write it. If it was ‘someone else at the table”- can you imagine “Da Boss” allowing it, not to mention the acwardness of writing personal conversation during a dinner. The others there would either not speak freely, or let the “writer” to it. Stenography, anyone?

    As to disarming a nation, conquered or not, Hitler actually encouraged citizens to have guns. It was actually, Stalin that disarmed the Russians.

    BTW, Trevor-Roper was a Br.gov. Black ops, his job was to issue lies and misinformation about Hitler and the Germans.

    • Aside from questions regarding translation or editing, Table Talk is still considered authentic. It was only used as a peripheral source to cite similar sentiments to the quote in question, which has no reliable attribution.

  4. odetocentipede // February 13, 2013 at 2:52 pm // Reply

    Good grief. Do we have to “lawyerize” everything in today’s world and miss the forest for the trees?

    The sentiment of the use of the Hitler “quote” is that a disarmed population is powerless to stop what is done either to them or done in their name to others. The point is that the removal of firearms from good and law-abiding people only serves to give the advantage to law-breakers and would-be tyrants.

    Obviously Obama is not Hitler, neither was Bush, but subjugating ourselves and putting blind faith in the benevolence of government is foolish and does have long term consequences. The country was founded on individual liberty. The core question is whether the rights of individuals should supercede the “smooth” operation of the collective.

    Would your great grandfathers have meakly acquiesced to something as mundane as seatbelt laws, salt regulation, eminent domain, etc.. under penalty just because “government” said it is for their own good or because it moved the spreadsheet numbers closer to their ideal?

    As each generation is indoctrinated with a growing paternalistic state, the closer we get to servitude to the state. We get so far removed from liberty, we don’t even realize we have lost it.

    Firearm ownersip isn’t negotiable and IMO is critical for us to maintain some control of our own government and it’s political cabal.

    • I couldn’t agree more Odo. It seems this discussion has floated between whether or not Hitler said those exact words, whether it’s o.k. to say he did, and if taking guns before or after ones “people”(whoever may be defined as so) have been conquered gives any evidence as to their intent, while tip-toeing around the very reason the root of this quote sparks such intense discourse. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SYSTEMATICALLY BEING STRIPPED OF THEIR RIGHTS! (sorry to resort to caps) Although I’m unclear as to the position Dan takes within his post, I felt that the following statement made clear that what is happening now, to us, on our soil, to all races within, is not all that different.

      Dan says:
      “…Hitler had been passing laws for 5 years previous to that, slowly eroding the rights of Jews. Weapons ownership was one of the LAST rights he took away from them, and it was pretty clear that the Jews in Germany were pretty well conquered by the time 1938 rolled around.”

      I’m only 32 so can only relate to the most recent, very encompassing, progression towards the American peoples complete surrender to the dictatorship that pretends to fight among itself in order to avoid addressing any legislation opposed by the desires of the citizens it swore to represent. Correct me if I’m wrong but as far as I know no single legislative action has done more to strip us of our freedom than The Patriot Act. But now, in 2013, our congress can find so many faults within The affordable care act that The Patriot, and more recent Monsanto Protection, acts seem to mean nothing to the very officials we have supossedly chosen to represent us!

      I don’t know if I’m done but I’m sure I’m damn tired so I’ll just lay down and hope it was all a dream. Goodnight America

  5. Windy Wilson // January 25, 2013 at 1:45 pm // Reply

    I have to object to the implicit idea that the German Jews were somehow not German. “Hitler made it easier for his own people to get guns”. His people then were not German Jews, German trade-unionists, German communists, German Gypsies, or anyone who did not support the Nazi goals. Hitler’s people then were the Nazi party members.

    • There is no intention to imply that Jews were not German, but certainly Hitler did not consider them a part of the “master race” or one of “his own.”

      • Methinks Windy is responding to other replies made to your column, where people repeatly state “Hitler only disarmed ‘Jews, NOT Germans’, making a false distinction.

        I agree with Windy: Hitler didn’t consider anyone who was not part of the loyal Nazi party to be “his” people, no matter what he said; his rhetoric changed over time until he was killing many, many people groups who had previously been ignored.

  6. Danzig Panzer // January 23, 2013 at 7:39 pm // Reply

    Funny how many people are so wrapped up in “WHO” actually is the author of said quote.

    The point is that the quote is deadly accurate. An all people of good conciseness should pay attention.

    The reality is that the Korperate / Goverment Amerika is bent on crushing all who stand in it’s way

    An a disarmed citizen body will most certainly be taken advantage of

    What you see the U.S. armed forces dish out to others around the world will be the same treatment given to the citizens of Amerika

    Either no gun or pro gun the truth has been spoken and I hope you take the warning seriously

    As your life hangs in the balance

    So if knowing who is the true author of a quote means so much to you
    Knock yourself out on this one
    But heed the warning of both, as the truth has been given to you, yet again

    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)

  7. Ok, so from what I am reading in these comments and the article is, Hitler did not really say this exact phrase and he only disarmed the Jews that he wanted to conquer, so that’s why disarmament in his case was acceptable. Am I getting that right? That seems incredibly wrong. If you are arguing that, this time its different because its not just one portion of society, that may be true. However, there is a tremendous risk in disarmament. Personally, I believe with our mounting debt crisis, our high unemployment rates, our weak economy and rising inflation that is becoming harder and harder to make ends meet. I believe we are going to see a spike in our national crime rates. Our cities cannot afford more police. You better come up with an alternative for protection and self defense extremely quickly! Washington, DC and Chicago suffer from the most strict gun legislation in our nation. So far in 2013, Chicago already has more than 31 murders. Last year they had over 500. Biden has said that they do not have the manpower to enforce the current gun laws, so we need to add more gun laws to protect our children. More gun laws like Chicago? Everything Lanza did was already illegal in Conn.

    I would ask the reasonable people on this website to please go watch two videos (both available on Youtube) and I would love to hear your reactions. The first is called, “Gun Control: The History of Gun Control” and the second is a two part series called “No Guns for Negroes (Parts 1 & 2)”

    If you are uninterested, obviously I can’t force you to watch or listen. But I would be interested to hear reactions from those who are reasonable and willing to have an open mind.

    • BurfordHolly // January 23, 2013 at 2:52 pm // Reply

      He said don’t occupy a country without disarming it, which is what the US did when it occupied Germany and Japan. He said disarm a country after conquering it, just like we do. The thing he wanted to conquer was France.

      Germany was confiscating everything from the Jews by 1938 – property, bank accounts, whatever. If they had guns the Germans would have confiscated them for the war effort, especially any rifles. There were many jews who were loyal patriotic German soldiers in ww1, so they probably had some guns.

  8. BurfordHolly // January 22, 2013 at 5:18 pm // Reply

    Also by 1938, the Jews were already effectively noncitizens.

    The terror started in 1933 with the Enabling Act and the killing of trade unionists, then in 1934 there was The Night Of The Long Knives where the “socialist” Nazi Strasserists were massacred (not Marxist Socialism BTW), the 1936 Nuremberg laws that barred Jews (and part Jews) from most professions and marriage. By 1938, the German people had already suffered 5 years of brutal purges and many dissidents and Jews had already been slaughtered.

  9. BurfordHolly // January 22, 2013 at 5:11 pm // Reply

    Also, the real quote:

    “……History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing…..”

    Which says that you take the people’s arms AFTER you conquer them.

    This is what every occupier does, including America. So unless wingnuts want to compare the US Army to the SS because it takes guns in occupied countries, that doesn’t make any sense at all.

  10. We in the civilized world look on in amazement at the so called “freedoms” you enjoy in the US. You allow your children to be murdered wholesale and you stamp your feet when anyone proposes a limit to your toys. I know that if I had had a gun in the house in the past, it would almost certainly have been fired at least once. That is the nature of humans. There are far too many morons with high powered weapons running around squalling that the President is a spoilsport. I pity him, he’s got no chance of anything meaningful coming out of this latest series of unholy wars against the young and the unarmed. Look at yourselves America – we laugh at you for your lack of understanding, but it isn’t funny.

  11. Hitler, not Butler, my phone and its blasted auto correct. Sorry.

  12. I agree with the fact you can’t prove it was Butler, stop saying hitler said it until proven otherwise. He relaxed gun laws for his people only the Jews were stopped from possessing guns. Mow on to the who gun control issue, 320 million Americans, roughly 280-300 million guns you do the math. The proposed gun restrictions and/or bans are on new assault rifles not ones already on the market or on the streets t
    , how are they coming for your guns here. Out of the 23 executive actions of the potus, only two have anything to do with stricter gun regulations. Most of them are about tougher screening and better record keeping as well as getting rid of gumshoe loopholes, again how is they coming for your guns. America has more privately held guns then the next 17 countries combined, how is this an assault on the 2nd amendment and how are they coming for you guns??? Its not the second amendment they are attacking it is our liberties and our right to privacy. All of the pro gun people are letting the government get you where they want you and where they want you is not paying attention to what they are really taking from us and you keep falling for it. Talk about them taking our guns when they have taken a few million off the street until then keep your paranoia in check , it’s not flattering. One more thing all presidents are responsible for tons of death and murder so if one is hitler, I geuss they all are , you don’t get to pick and choose along party lines and if they were hitler , why are they nit rounding us dissenters up and shipping us off because hitler took the dissenters, freethinkers, and political rivals out first and last I checked if that was true most of us would be gone as would most of Congress and any politicians that were not in his party. I understand if you don’t like or even hate the Pres but seriously hitler he is not. Peace to all. Sorry for any errors, I’m on my phone.

  13. It seems highly likely that he would have said it—Just like the other crazies that killed over 260 million people died at the hands of democide—But yeah, all dictators prefer an armed opposition as opposed to unarmed pacifist liberal sheep—If I were a committer of democide I could prolly pack a 1,000 unarmed liberals into an oven in a single day, and still get home in time for dinner, but It would be far harder to put a single well armed patriot in the same place—-Bah Bah Bah—-Rock on sheep!

  14. It is possible that this quote (if Hitler actually said it) may have been lifted out of context. He may have been giving a speech complaining about the restrictions imposed upon the Germans by the Treaty of Versailles after WWI. Due to this treaty, the Weimar Republic had to confiscate the guns from the German people. In 1928, they relaxed the gun laws a little bit (required strict licensing requirements etc. instead of the outright ban on gun ownership) Perhaps it was around this time, in support of this new law that Hitler may have said something to the effect of this quote. He was not in power yet, but he was active on the political scene.

    In 1938 Hitler relaxed the gun laws even further (except for the Jews… gun ownership was one of the many rights he deprived the Jews of). So, while the gun laws in Nazi Germany seem tough, what they were doing was gradually chipping away at the ban imposed by the Treaty of Versailles.

    • BurfordHolly // January 22, 2013 at 5:33 pm // Reply

      Also he published Mein Kampf in 1927, and there was nothing in there about guns, but he wrote about every other thing imaginable.

  15. 2ruth matters // January 14, 2013 at 5:50 am // Reply

    I find it interesting that no matter how a blog starts out, it almost always degrades to name calling and verbal brawls. Does anyone understand that this only makes your opposition dig in their heels for being attacked and it solves nothing. IMO is that an exact quote isn’t the argument nor is who Hitler indicated be included in the weapons confiscation. Once you disarm A people, they become helpless which was Hitlers goal. Unfortunately, even though many can’t see the underlying threat right now, by removing the ability to defend oneself in an effort to make everyone safe is a most dangerous illusion. The history of man simply does not bear out that scenario. Power corrupts isn’t just a saying, it is fact. I’d also like to point out that the new meaning for “tolerance” has somehow been changed from respecting someone else’s differing beliefs or opinion on something, to not being able to hold a differing belief or opinion about something and applies to EVERYONE and to think otherwise is “intolerant”. Semantic change.. Gotta love it!

  16. This article says that it would not call this quote false because Hitler showed he agreed with this sentiment. I disagree with that assessment due to the context in which the quote is used.

    The quote is often used in gun control arguments on websites. It implies that to conquer a nation from within the powers in charge would first begin to take away the guns. The quotes in this article that we can factually attribute to Hitler discuss oppressing people after they have been conquored.

    This may seem like a minor detail, but it makes a big difference when you put it in context of a discussion on the 2nd Amendment. Of course Hitler or any other dictator that conquors a nation and controls it through force will object to arming its citizens. Is that not logical?

    Under Hitler Nazi Germany actually eased restrictions on guns. The Jews living in Germany were not allowed to own guns, but the other German citizens found it easier to obtain a gun.

    Since the quote cannot be validated as coming from Hitler, and since Hitler did not follow this practice in rising to power or maintaining power in Germany, the quote must be labeled “False”.

    • Thanks for your comment. The article does state that the quote is used out of context and that Hitler eased gun control restrictions on his own people.

      • While you were saying that the quote, if it existed, could be in reference to the 1938 Weapons law, you do not mention that Hitler had been passing laws for 5 years previous to that, slowly eroding the rights of Jews. Weapons ownership was one of the LAST rights he took away from them, and it was pretty clear that the Jews in Germany were pretty well conquered by the time 1938 rolled around. Given that Hitler never practiced this quote, it’s probably derived from the Goebbels quote, and of course the irony inherent there is that what Goebbels says (which is consistent with Nazi philosophy) is exactly what people are doing in manufacturing these mis-quotes.

        • I find it interesting that people keep saying, “Hitler didn’t disarm GERMANS, he disarmed JEWS.” Isn’t that like saying “We’re not disarming whites, we’re only disarming hispanics”?? The Jews in question were living IN GERMANY…they were citizens. They were part of the country.

          To say that Hitler’s quote (or his action) about removing gun rights from a select part of the German population isn’t comparable to “today’s” gun control today in our nation is a bit misleading.

          Hitler took away the rights of part of the citizens of Germany…he then proceeded to exterminate them. When I see rights in our country being extended towards some–and withdrawn from others–I can’t help but make the connection.

          • You’re asserting that residence equals citizenship. It doesn’t.

            It’s exactly like saying, “We’re going to disarm all hispanics”…

            The part of the equation you’re (all) seemingly missing is that it was the Jews who had declared war on Germany already in 1933, both verbally and actually by way of global boycotts against Germany. In other words – long before the ‘rights’ of any Jew in Germany had been revoked.

            So back to your comparison regarding hispanics, imagine if the hispanics had declared war on the US… The National Socialists restricted the rights (gun or otherwise) of Jews much the same as the US restricted the rights of the Japanese in much of North America.

  17. Of course you can’t prove he didn’t say it, you can’t prove a negative. But if you find no proof that he did, then there is no reason to believe he did. What seems evident to me is that the use of this quote, no matter its source, appears to be a misleading paraphrase of what Hitler actual beliefs were in order to demonize gun control advocates in the US.

    • Well, it is important to note that it is not impossible to prove a negative. It’s just harder. If we knew every word Hitler had ever said, we could prove the negative. I feel like the inability to prove a negative is a common misconception. In any case, I could be argued that he view of disarming Jews to take away their power and protection, is similar to abolishing our gun rights taking away our power and protection. Though to some extent you are correct that it is a little out of context.

      • Using your logic, it’s possible to prove he never said it if, and only if, we could find every word he ever said. That’s in any meaningful sense impossible. That is, to prove a negative you need to know every case of the issue in question. That’s why it’s impossible to prove a negative.

        • Windy Wilson // January 25, 2013 at 1:38 pm // Reply

          As they say, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, unless you’re trying to win a Motion for Summary Judgment.”

  18. Sorry in advance, but I usually cannot resist jumping in the middle of a good argument. It seems to me that Agent J’s objective is a very valid objective (wanting people to quote responsibly, and to shame whomever used the above quote incorrectly). However, Waffles makes it clear that his/her objective is different. Waffle’s objective is to show that there is “no evidence of the source for this quote” (that is easily found by a common researcher, I might add. Maybe its there somewhere in German archives). That’s it. Waffles very well could have an entirely separate weblog elsewhere online, in which they go ape-shit on the NRA for their “campaign of deception”.

    On a side note, my interpretation of Agent J’s gun crazy nut bar is a toothless guy with freakin amo packs strapped around his chest and definitely no internet connection. I think you be safe, Swearfinger!

  19. I only recently found your website. I am a regular viewer of the doubtfulnew.com site. There was a link to your site. I read this article and could not but feel the author(s) were not seeking the true source of the controversial quote. It appears from the text the article is walking a PR tight rope. I would suggest that if the quote is not sourced properly, be it as a deliberate misquote for whatever reason, or simply because the source has yet to be located, then the NRA is engaging in a campaign of deception. The concern for this reader is not guns/arms/ammunition and the ‘rights’ thereof. Instead, it is the source of the quote. Moreover, I am wondering why the article did not state it’s position clearly. The quote cannot be sourced as it is. Therefore, it should NOT be attributed to anyone. I would recommend making a stand that is firm and clear. Not a stand that seeks to avoid offending anyone, be they academics, casual readers, or gun crazy nut bars who see an enemy in every shadow and in every eye blink.
    agent j

    • There is no “tightrope” when discussing this quote. There are several things to present in such a discussion, which we have done. Consider:

      There is no evidence of the source for this quote, Hitler or otherwise.
      Hitler DID express some similar sentiments, but he was not speaking of conquering his own people.
      The Nazi’s actually relaxed gun laws for Germans while restricting them for Jews.

      If there is a “stand” to make, it appears that the article attempts to do so, that being:
      We don’t know if Hitler said it, and Nazi gun control was primarily aimed at those Hitler wanted to conquer, not his own people.

      • nopropforwords // January 4, 2013 at 7:03 pm // Reply

        Personally I find the reference of Hitler to any AMERICAN offensive. However, in researching this myself I came up with not any more conclusive information…I do feel the connection of this quote if actually sentimented by Hitler, would more closely be related to the people (JEWS) he sought to destroy and NOTHING TO DO WITH GUNS. This is what I find disgusting when factual words are taken out of context and skewed…This man was a murderer and no American should ever be compared to him…If that is how anyone feels they should find someplace else to live…

        • Murray Smith // January 9, 2013 at 7:21 pm // Reply

          Where would you suggest? Pakistan? What rock do you live under? Obama is already the Adolf Hitler of the 21st Century … a murderer.

          But hey . . . God bless AMERICA reicht?

          Yours is the most offensive country on earth, literally!

          • This must be the most absurd comment I’ve ever read. As if there are no murderers in America. As if our president doesn’t send drones to the air space of other countries and boasts that he’s only killed a few women and children to get the bad guy. I’m STUNNED at the level of idiocy in this world. That one could say did hitler say “to…one must first disarm citizens..” Rather than ask did hitler did hitler disarm those he sought to conquer!? Which is more important? That he said it? Or did it? If he did it, then who cares if HE SAID IT!!! Absolutely AMAZING that we put more stock into what dictators say, rather than what they did. The same with Stalin! Is it important as to whether or not he said (to paraphrase) “America is like a healthy body, with its resistance being patriotism faith and morals, if we can undermine these 3 things America will collapse from within” that we debate whether or not he said it while remaining blind to the fact that America’s faith, patriotism, and morals have been undermined and we are now on the brink of collapse! The whole summation of communism are these two quotes attributed to these two communists and you sit here debating whether or not they said it. They (as in communists) DID IT! They’re doing it NOW! And you strain at the gnat of whether or not they said it, while swallowing the camel of the fact that they DID IT! And ARE DOING IT! MORONS!

        • Capt. Obvious // January 13, 2013 at 1:12 pm // Reply

          Richard Ramirez was also an American. Just because someone is an American, this does not make them a good person, this does not make them any better than anyone else, and it certainly does not mean they can not be every bit as twisted as hitler. They may not be as successful in their twisted ventures, but they are still just as dispicable of a person. So go ahead and be offended, I’ll stop comparing certain Americans to Hitler, when they stop acting like him.

    • Swearfinger said, “Point blank, he took guns away from Jews then murdered millions of them. Exactly what is going on here in the US.”

      Really? You’re xenophobic and paranoid. Independence Day was a movie. Go watch another one while you enjoy your freedoms but complain how you have none.

      • Less than 1% of the Jews that died in gas chambers, fire pits or died because of starvation were affected by Hitlers “Gun control.” So, to say that Hitlers “Gun control” led to the deaths of 5.7+ million Jews is delusional at best.

    • The brown shirts were right-wing, Skippy.

      • Windy Wilson // January 25, 2013 at 1:36 pm // Reply

        Exactly what were the differences between the International Socialists and the National Socialists except the snappyness of the uniforms and the way the National Socialists allowed private ownership of things but regulated every aspect of that ownership, so the government effectively owned the things regulated?

        If anything, Presidents Bush and Obama are our Weimar Presidents. Laws have been enacted that can be misused. The fact that they have not yet been misused does not mean they cannot. Research the Red Scare and the Palmer Raids and get back.

    • BurfordHolly // January 22, 2013 at 5:24 pm // Reply

      Hitler slaughtered the Nazi “socialists” in the 1934 Night Of The Long Knives.

      They were not Marxists, they were the Strassers who wanted a military junta run by the “Junkers” (the hereditary military officer class). The Nazi “socialists” were probably a lot more like our modern GOP – religious military minded status quo types. Hitler killed them because he wanted his race based conspiracy theories.

      Of course Hitler also wanted to crush the trade unions which were the base of his opponents the Social DEMOCRATS.

      Anyway “socialism” had nothing to do with the germany that fought ww2 or the death of the Jews, well except that Hitler swore he’d kill the Socialist Jews, and he did.

      • Windy Wilson // January 25, 2013 at 1:48 pm // Reply

        But it started as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The 1920 platform wanted all sorts of social programs funded by the state and also including policies to encourage fuller employment.

    • You are without an argument – just all over the place, distraction doesn’t equal anything.

      Calling fellow citizens “you people”, and defining them by your opinion makes it impossible to have any reasonable discourse with you. This is the problem we have in our country right now and until people stop putting up walls, name-calling, and acting like jerks to one another, we are going to crumble.

      As for slippery slopes, this idea, gleamed from Hitler or Mother Theresa or whomever, seems to be exactly that. Everything is much more complicated than a couple of sentences.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

*



eight − 4 =