Jeffrey Smith said...
If you make history-based arguments, please ensure your history is correct.
German gun control laws were put in place by the Weimar Republic well before the Nazis came to power. And given that the overwhelming number of Jewish victims were living outside of Germany in September 1939, the relevant gun control laws are those of the Soviets, Poles, French, etc.
I will be blunt and say this: anyone who thinks a group of citizens can outfight the government is the one living in a fantasy world. Bundy faced down the government not because he utilized his Second Amendment rights but because he utilized his First Amendment rights.
This deserves to be on the front page and deserves a reply, thanks to Jeff for taking the time to comment. Here goes.
1. I know when the laws were passed in Germany and who passed them. Then the Nazis came to power and put them to use. This perfectly proves my point. Trusting the current government with more control because it seems benign sets you up for any future government to misuse power.
2. If you want to discuss the gun control put in place by the USSR, the outcome was more horrific than Germany's. The collectivization of the Stalin Era, the gulags, and resultant famines exceed the deaths in the Nazi extermination camps.
3. The Poles and French, along with other conquered countries including most of the USSR west of Moscow, fell under Nazi control and Nazi martial law, and then the Jews in those countries were rounded up for transport.
4. If you think that it would be possible to disarm the American populace without their active cooperation, you haven't thought it through. All we would have to to do is refuse. Look at drug laws, prohibition, and immigration.
5. There would be no need and no reason to outfight anyone, no one goes up against a superior force. If the people actively resisted, however, it would be impossible for the government to even begin a confiscation. Any indigenous populace on their own land can resist a military force. Consider Vietnam and Afghanistan when you want to talk about the limits of what an army can do. Then, who is going to do it? Are you thinking of using the Army to invade cities and go house to house? Do you think local police will do it? Are you going to assume that either of those groups would even follow those orders when it meant knocking on doors of fathers, brothers, sons, and close friends? Then, do you think the populace would sit in their homes and wait for that knock? Think hard about who the gun owners are. There would be, planned or not, what would amount to a general strike by the very people that are the ones paying taxes, working farms, keeping the lights and water on, etc.
6. Bundy and the people that came out to support him, right or wrong, most definitely used their 2nd Amendment rights along the 1st. You don't have to fire a weapon for the weapon to have the desired effect. Neither side wanted it to come to shooting or it would have. On a more individual level, there are far more many times that a weapon is used to stop or prevent a crime than they are used to shoot criminals. This is true both for police and the citizens that carry.
I have one more thing to say and this not that this is part of the reply to what I see as an honest comment. If laws were passed that disarmed the citizens of the United States, what you would have by the time the disarmament was accomplished, would be a police state. There be a before and after. All our freedoms are intertwined in ways we barely understand and we pluck at those threads at our own peril. It might not be as bad as Nazi Germany or the USSR at first, but that power to force citizens to comply would corrupt and someone would come along to grasp that power.