The Rude Pundit - Sorry, Gun Nuts: Hitler Actually Relaxed Most Gun Laws

[FBaggins]

91. Of course it isn't. But you should at least support your claim. No?

Your brief synopsis does a great job of supporting the strawman made elsewhere (hugabear below as an example)... but not the actual statement. It's a step in the right direction from "you're wrong and if you knew anything you would know that"... but is still unresponsive.

You've gone to some length to demonstrate that the jews would not have been able to resist the nazis successfully just by having legal access to more firearms. The fact that so many leap to that strawman is itself an indication that their position is weak at best.

The pro-2A argument isn't that the jews would have beaten the nazis in some WWII version of Red Dawn. It's merely one of many examples that abusive regimes throughout history (including the british that the founders had just thrown off) have often gone out of their way to first disarm the potential opposition. Their position is that one aspect of the purpose of 2A is that it is harder for an abusive regime to disarm the opposition. To remove from legislative authority the determination of which groups were acceptable/encouraged to be armed and which were to be disarmed - so that a change in administration cannot result in a fundamental change in who could own a firearm. The nazi analogy makes this point very well.

And keep in mind that your statement was far more broad-reaching than what you're defending here. It was that the law "had Nothing To Do With the Deaths Of German Jews". For such a statement to be true, you would have to believe that not a single additional jew would have survived had the law not been enacted... and not a single arian german who later went on to kill a jew would have been killed in such a defense. Such a claim is beyond belief. It's demonstrable that some german jews did resist and some of them (including a distant relation of mine) survived and even rescued others.

Ask yourself what Hitler's purpose was in putting that law into place. Could it be anything BUT disarming his opposition? (your synopsis actually makes this point for me). Were you an adviser would you have said "ah... there's no point in passing that. It won't make any difference" ?