Gun confiscation: OK, so I read up on the history of German gun control.

Heres what I found: The

Weimar Republic banned gun ownership in 1919, before Hitlers rise to power, which included gun
confiscation. This ban was lifted in 1928 during Hitlers rise to power, though gun possession was still
heavily regulated. In 1938 when Hitler was in power, there was further deregulatory legislation, but that
legislation also banned Jewish people from obtaining a permit, effectively preventing them from owning
any firearms, and also resulting in more gun confiscation, but just from Jewish people (and some other
groups, Gypsies and the like, that the Third Reich didnt like). So in general they started with confiscation
of all guns from all people before Hitler, and had confiscation of all guns from a minority group of people
with Hitler.
Looking at Hillary Clintons view on guns, she has supported an assault weapons ban. If there were a law
to ban AR-15s (or similar weapons), shed sign it. Its logical to assume that such a ban could require
confiscation of these weapons, though not necessarily (the 1994 ban only applied to guns manufactured
after the date the ban was passed, so no confiscation occured). Id argue that the only way a bill like that
would ever get passed in Congress again would be if it included a similar provision to the 94 bill, but it is
reasonable to think that confiscation could result. However, in my opinion, this does not constitute a
reasonable similarity to gun policies under Hitler.
Under Hitler, there was confiscation of all guns from a group of people based on ethnicity/religion, while
the majority group was allowed regulated gun ownership. Under the most extreme enactment of
policies supported by Hillary Clinton, there could be confiscation of a type of gun from all people
equally. In my view, thats not a comparable approach to gun policy.
Disclaimer: I am not at all an expert on gun policy on the Third Reich. This is a basic understanding of the
policies enacted in Germany based on a few resources I found on the Internet. Its possible I missed
some history here, but the overall arc of the policies does not support a comparison to Clintons policies
in my opinion. The bulk of my info on German gun policies comes from this:
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=flr

UN Arms Trade Treaty: Under Hitler, there was heavy gun regulation, including registration and the like.
Ive seen claims that the UNs Arms Trade Treaty would result in similar policies coming to pass in the
US. However, I dont see evidence to support the claim that support of the UN Arms Trade Treaty
constitutes support for enacting gun registration, or subverting the 2nd Amendment in another way. The
Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State and her successor
John Kerry, made it clear that their support of the treaty was conditional on its not violating our 2nd
Amendment. From a White House statement: There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or
trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution. There will be no
dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or
possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law. (Ill also link to a Snopes article on
this topic below.)
Again, I dont see a viable comparison Hitler and Hillary here. On this point, I see even less similarity
between their views than on gun confiscation.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

The fact that almost everyone that was supposed to speak against her during the investigation.
Im not clear on what you mean here, so I dont have a response on this point.

Syrian refugees: Clinton supports (depending on which source you look at) allowing 10,000-75,000 more
Syrian refugees into the US. The process for a Syrian refugee to be allowed into the country takes, on
average, 1-2 years, so it would be quite some time before that amount of people were actually in the
country. The current process is extremely thorough and involves many levels of security checks through
many different agencies (State Department, FBI, DOD, Homeland Security). The legislation proposed by
House Republicans wasnt an introduction of the only background check that a Syrian refugee would
face before being allowed into the country, it proposed additional steps to the already strictly vetted
procedure.
Refugees to the US are first referred, basically, to the US by getting cleared through an international
group like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. These groups place a priority on
refugees who belong to the most at-risk groups (victims of torture, children, etc.). Youre right that the
majority of Syrian refugees showing up in Europe are men, but because of the US process, the Syrian
refugees are close to 50/50 male/female (and also about 50% are under 20).
Im not clear on how you think this relates to Hitler or the Civil War.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-unitedstates
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/19/things-to-know-refugee-processing-and-background-checksfor-syrian-refugees.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34872382