Adolf Hitler Quote 

"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 the 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."

by:
Adolf Hitler
(1889-1945) German Nazi Dictator
Source:
Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944, Edited by H.R. Trevor-Roper (London: Widenfeld and Nicolson, 1953), pp. 425-426.
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share

Reader comments about this quote:
Five stars for illustrative value. No stars for 'motto' value except in certain circles beholden to King George(-iepooh). WE ... are the 'subject races' - no matter what 'color' or 'ethnicity' or 'religious persuasion' 'WE' happen to be.
 -- Terry Berg, Occidental, CA		 
 -- Joe, Rochester, MI 
... and so the "guns rights" advocates are actually telling us to overthrow the current opressive goverenment by violent means rather than peaceful ones? Well, get to it then, don't let us stand in your way of your violent solution (since that same party (the GOP) is blocking peaceful means such as voting)! (Anything to be rid of this budding dictatorship!)
 -- Anonymous, Reston, VA US		 
In what utopian facade do some people live under that they think that they can overthrow oppressive, tyrannical, and coercive government by 'peaceful' means? Are the virtues and principles of a Republic REALLY that dead in the hearts of so many Americans? Do we REALLY want safety (perceived or not) over freedom and liberty? We haven't reached the place of Nazi Germany, yet, but is it too far off to say we're taking steps towards it? How do you protect yourself from a criminal who is pointing a gun down your throat? Gangs, troubled teens, murderers, etc. - we all think these people should not be in possession of fire-arms, that's not in question - but what happens when a populace has been completely disarmed, years and years from now, and government becomes that criminal with the gun down our throat? What of 'peaceful' resistance then? "If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest for freedom - go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or arms, crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, may your chains set lightly upon you, and may our posterity forget that you were ever our country men." - Samuel Adams
 -- Logan, Memphis, TN		 
Adolf understood it...and so did our Founding Fathers--hence the 2nd Amendment. I am amazed at the simpletons living in Never-Never Land that will never get it. But, don't worry you Pans, the adults will take care of it--always have...you will stay free if we have to drag you kicking and screaming.
 -- MIchael, Houston, TX		 
Authoritarian policies are designed to take power away from the people and put it in the hands of the despot. If you find a people without arms, without choices, without a way to provide for themselves, whose lives are governed from cradle to grave, whose labors are taxed 50% all the days of their lives, whose privacy and property are at the behest of the authorities, then you have found a powerless people, under the thumb of a tyrant (whether a single individual or a committee). To retain my own power to fend for myself, to work without permission from authorities, to reap what I have sown, to take responsibility for myself and my family -- look at how much power that is -- should I have such power? Can I be trusted with such power? Who says so? I do -- it is my declaration of Independence -- and most likely I will have to fight for it just like my forefathers. Liberty -- it is still a revolutionary idea.
 -- E Archer, NYC		 
Anon-Reston: "... overthrow the current oppressive government by violent means rather than peaceful ones?" - overthrow, overturn, subvert, topple, upset. The central meaning shared by these verbs is “to cause the downfall, destruction, abolition, or undoing of” - 1. To throw over; overturn. 2. To bring about the downfall or destruction of, especially by force or concerted action - AHD || The very word 'overthrow' implies the possibility that some sort of violence is likely to attend such action. It appears you may be 'reading' things into this issue that are not actually advocated by "guns rights" advocates across the board or even by a majority of second amendment proponents. Luckily, it APPEARS that 'overthrow' is not the one remaining option at our disposal at this time. We don't even appear to be close to that condition. Hopefully, this nation will avoid a condition where that will become the case once again - as it was with our original King George III. The direction in which our 'legal infrastructure' and the philosophies underpinning the application of those laws are heading, does, nevertheless, appear to have uncanny similarities to it's counterparts in Nazi Germany during Hitler's reign (we don't call it a 'reign' for no good reason either). - BTW, it's just a tiny bit naive to imagine that ALL "guns rights" advocates are in the GOP, or are sympathizers of, the GOP's policies across the board, or are even slightly sympathetic to most of their ideology. I don't see a 'tight', 'one to one' relationship between the two. || Ben Franklin: "They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 -- Terry Berg, Occidental, CA		 
 -- Anonymous, Raleigh, NC 
It is true, our shadows are still on the walls of the cave...
 -- Robert, Sarasota		 
It is a good quote, but you should have included in the quote of the day Machiavelli's quote on why it is better for the government to allow the men to have their arms.
 -- Tommi Atwood, Garland		 
"When the Government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the Government, there is tyranny."---Thomas Jefferson.
"If someone is so fearful that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have those weapons at all."---Henry Waxman, D-California.
Compare and Contrast.
 -- Ken, Allyn, WA		 
Tommi, Machiavelli's FULL quote is: "For among other causes of misfortune which your not being armed brings upon you, it makes you despised, and this is one of those reproaches against which, as shall presently be explained, a Prince ought most carefully to guard." - it's funny how an incomplete quote can appear to mean the reverse of what was intended in its full context. Machiavelli was not referring to an armed populace. He was referring to the armies of a Prince. - It was preceeded by: "we often see that when Princes devote themselves rather to pleasure than to arms, they lose their dominions."
 -- Terry Berg, Occidental, CA		 
I score it high, to show how important it is that the past be learned from, that gun grabbing tyrants are the most dangerous, such as what PM Harper promised to be.
 -- Gölök Zoltán Leenderdt Franco Buday, Vancouver, GVRD(Paine Cnty), Coastal Lwr Mainland BC(State of Neo Sumer), U.S. of Eh!		 
Funny how real dictators have this whole gun-control thing in common, eh Reston?
 -- Helberg, Minnesota		 
why this man almost took over the world. he might have been crazy but he was a genius.
 -- russ, jackson		 
i really don't care about hitler he was so wrong.
 -- janice, Monroe		 
good quote bad person
 -- Anonymous		 
I think it's bullshit. Why should Hitler have worried about guns? You can always fire into a building with a tank. Hitler said a lot when the day was long and most of it was bullshit he parroted from someone else.
 -- Bryan, Phoenix		 
No tyrant worth his salt would allow his victims the ability to defend them selves. Those that want gun control do not realize that the evil that will come from the state when there are no guns allowed is far worse than the evil of letting someone protect his person and property.
 -- warren, olathe		 
cool i can use it for my project it works for me haha
 -- matthew, riva		 
 -- Anonymous 
i think its the best quote and according to me you follow these path only but without killing and harashing the others
 -- jwala sharma, indore/mumbai		 
hitler was a jack ass and he got exactly what he deserved...
 -- K. Hamer		 
The jack boots of the 30's and 40's were no different than those today. "To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -- George Mason
 -- Eddie, Fort worth		 
Bryan, Pheonix. Good point since one shot with a tank will kill every single person in a building. AND people only stay in buildings during a war. IDIOT!
 -- Randon, Las Vegas		 
his salt would allow his victims the ability to defend them selves. Those that want gun control do not realize that the evil that will come from the state when there are no guns allowed is far worse than the evil of letting someone protect his person and property
 -- jwala sharma, Indore/Mumbai		 
A simple look at history shows that the delegates (ambassadors) were not sent directly from the people... the people did not have a vote to charge these representatives with a particular duty; the states gave these representatives this charge. This does not, however, establish a rule of elitists. The colonies considered themselves states long before the Constitution was created; in fact, it was because of this strong sense of statehood that it took so long for the constitution to even be ratified. Americans today have a little different understanding of statehood than does the rest of the world (or our founders did). Most Americans perceive a state to be more along the lines of a province or subservient geographic area. A state, however, is defined as a specified geographic area with a political and sovereign politically governing body. The key word here is "sovereign." Each state, during the ratification of the Constitution, considered itself as sovereign and separate from each other state as currently Great Britain does from Japan. Before the Constitution, varying states even had their own currency! Each ambassador was appointed to the conference by the state to represent that state in what was considered an international affair. The collection of states under a single system of government is called "federalism," wherein each state freely agrees to delegate certain characteristics of its sovereignty to a higher power. So, as an example, consider if this were done today: If Germany were to enter into supranational federalism with France or Italy, wouldn't Germany want to make sure that its citizens would be protected against the vested interests of France or Italy in such a federalist alliance? If France and Italy wanted to implement an economic model that would destroy Germany's ability to produce its natural resources, wouldn't you think there should be a provision that would allow Germany to veto such a bill, even though it was in the minority in this federalist alliance? Or, what if Germany and France wanted to pass federalist legislation that would directly incapacitate the ability of the individuals in Italy to make a living; wouldn't you think there should be a power provided to veto such a bill, even though Italy was in the minority? Is it just to destroy the livelihood of Italy because Germany and France thought it was a good idea for their own economy? Democracy says, "no, there should be no exceptions, it's majority rule all of the time, absolutely." A Republic (as established by the founders of the Constitution (Article 4, Section 4)), agrees that it is not justifiable for France or Germany to pass legislation that would directly injure the individuals in Italy, or that France and Italy could pass legislation that would harm Germany's economy in production. This does not set up an "elitist" society, but a justifiable society that rules on the will of the majority while also protecting the rights of the minority. The ambassadors of the states to the federalist society are called "Senators" in our Constitution; however, the authors of the Constitution also thought it necessary to also carry the voice of the people to the federalist level; hence, they created the "House of Representatives," that was chosen directly by the people. This is clearly obvious when you study the "great compromise" of the Constitutional Convention. The Constitution originally arranged for the President to be elected by varied means other than by direct vote of the people. The power, in every way, still rested within the people themselves, because the people voted for their state representatives that in turn also voted for the Senate and the President. This dualistic nature of the legislative branch made it possible for issues pertaining to the state (the Senate) to be checked by the voice of the people themselves (the House of Representatives). If the people didn't like what the federalist Senate was doing, then they're warn their local representatives that they better vote for some other federal state ambassador (Senator) or come the next election they would be voted out themselves. The power, in everyway, always came back to the people. This order of a Republic, however, made the checks and balances stronger and protected the rights of the individuals and the states from the onslaught of the federalist system. A Republic gives the states the right to opt out of federal legislation that would harm its citizens. In a democracy, the states would not be capable of backing out of such federalist legislation as the REAL I.D.; however, we can clearly see that many states ARE opting out of the REAL I.D. legislation passed by the federal majority, because state legislatures and governors consider such federal laws to be against their state sovereignty and their citizens "inalienable rights." So, no, "the Republic enthusiasts" here do not believe that we should be ruled by "an elitist few men and we should stay with government by an elitist few men," neither do we find anything wrong with the sovereign states having the ability of sending ambassadors to represent them in international affairs. Democracies look to the majority rule, with no exception, anytime. Republics look to the majority rule, with a few exceptions, sometimes. If a federalist law infringes upon the sovereignty of the states or the inalienable rights of the people, then the federal government has no ability act--regardless of what the ruling majority desires
 -- indore, jwala sharma indore		 
show how important it is that the past be learned from, that gun grabbing tyrants are the most dangerous
 -- jwala sharma, jwala sharma indore		 
horible
 -- josh, overlandpark		 
Bookmark and Share
Rate this quote!
How many stars?
0
1
2
3
4
5
 
What do YOU think?
Your name:
Your town:
    CLICK JUST ONCE!

  
Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
Email:
 
This site is supported
by donors like you!

More Quotations

Read the Bills Act Coalition
Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

© 1998-2008 Liberty-Tree.ca