Poor Ben.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by JBS...

Is that what he said?

“A More Perfect Union”

"German citizens were disarmed by their government in the late 1930s, and by the mid-1940s Hitler’s regime had mercilessly slaughtered six million Jews and numerous others whom they considered inferior … Through a combination of removing guns and disseminating deceitful propaganda, the Nazis were able to carry out their evil intentions with relatively little resistance."

Blitzer interview, Carson added

“The likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed.”

And he is right!

Ridiculous. Individual victims and families, even if armed, would be basically helpless against the mobs and heavily-armed squads the Nazis deployed. Only when victims are able to gather in armed groups, such as partisan bands in non-German territory in the east, or when the Nazis had concentrated them in a defensible urban district (Warsaw Ghetto) was effective resistance possible. And of course, this resistance happened despite the most stringent gun control imaginable--possession of arms was punished by summary execution.

Since resistance happened despite total gun control, it would appear that its presence or absence wasn't the controlling factor. It seems to me the controlling factor was the ability of a group determined on resistance to secure a base of operations. Conditions allowing this never arose in Germany itself.