Hitler and gun laws

I await with interest possible developments in US politics; will the enraged citizenry take to the streets, armed not with pitchforks but barely street-legal tuned-down assault rifles from Bud’s Gun Shop? Given the amount of quasi-military hardware in civilian hands, the rate of gun ownership nationwide, and a penchant for using it, could the teeming masses take on the US gummint and win? My guess is that the TM could do quite a bit of damage, but the US Army would still win.

The same applies to Germany at the time of the Austrian corporal with the silly 'tache. Or eastern Europe, for that matter. Point one: you need more than a few rubes armed with hunting rifles to take on trained soldiers. Point two: the rubes are not coordinated, but the army is. Teamwork really does matter. Point three: the army usually has better hardware and more of it Sniping in the approved guerrilla or terrorist style will up the body count among the military, but sooner or later the sniper is found and taken out. In the case of Hitler and his charming pals, they would often do this by taking out the neighborhood.

In short, the million or so Jews in Germany in 1933 would not have changed their fate substantially if they had fought back with small arms. Had they tried, they would have been put down by the military and haled up in court by the police, all with the support of the average German.

I don’t know what the rate of gun ownership in eastern Europe was, but the situation in the occupied countries was worse. International law decrees the a country that surrenders must cease all forms of attack against the occupying power. Occupying forces tend to impose martial law, and the penalties are usually drastic. Certainly in the case of ol’ Adolf, who really did not mess around when a franc tireur was captured. The countries did fight back, but using captured weapons or ones air-dropped by the Brits. And the human cost was high.

I assumer this is in response to the column Did Hitler ban gun ownership? by DavidB.

I’ve added a link to the column.

Eastern Europe was awash with guns after WW2. Also with men who had military training and knew how to use said guns. Every one of those Soviet Bloc countries had an armed and trained militia that resisted Soviet rule, and every one of them lost in the end.

This is why I roll my eyes at Americans who imagine that their “right” to guns is what protects them from tyranny.

Hm. I guess they didn’t reach that magic “three percent” number.

(Of course, in the American Revolution, 3% means 15% or so, and the UK was fighting a trans-oceanic war which was somewhat unpopular back home, as opposed the USSR fighting a war right at their doorstep which was “Stalin will ship anyone who voices any opposition to the gulag” back home. I wonder which of those a true Revolt Against Washington Tyranny would more resemble; I General Lee think it would be the latter.)

Sometimes people die in cars even when they were wearing their seat belts.
Doesn’t necessarily mean that seat belts offer no protection.
Obviously, ymmv.

They did resist with firearms at the Warsaw ghetto.
Not, as you suggest, that it did any good except kill a few Germans.