There were 400,000 Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. By the time the uprising started, almost everyone was already dead. Only the last few thousand fought the Nazis.

With the benefit of hindsight, we wonder why everyone didn't fight with whatever weapons they had rather than go to certain death, but few recognized the scope of the Final Solution as it was happening. Even those with information couldn't bring themselves to believe it. Most Jews boarded the trains believing they were headed for resettlement in the east.

It requires great desperation to fight a well-equipped army, whether you're armed with homemade molotov cocktails or semi-automatics. That level of desperation didn't exist until very late in war. If the Jews had been better armed, the Nazis would have certainly disarmed them before they even reached the ghetto. The only real difference would have been a better black market that would have enabled the Jews who finally resisted to obtain more lethal weapons from the outside.

You are always primed for an argument. If you don't like the Bull Connor analogy then use Rosewood, Florida or Tulsa, Oklahoma.

(edited to correct the Rosewood link)

Is saying a writer deserved to lose his job over an opinion a personal attack?

I don't think a person who publishes the opinions you do on the internet should be allowed a gun. That's a judgment of your words, like Jolly said, your "oeuvre." The pseudonym Resistance has to take responsibility for the ownership of what he publishes, the picture he draws. And people are free not to like the picture he draws or infer anything they want from it. If you don't feel like the picture they get from your words is accurate, change your words until they get a different picture. We have only the words to judge if we aren't in the room with you. You don't even use your real name, so, unlike Dick Metcalf, we can't look up your biography or an interview with you to try to get a better bead on what the real you is like.

When moderators say "no personal attacks" and "attack the argument, not the person," they mean don't react like this in comments: "you're an idiot" and "you're an asshole!" and "fuck you!" It does not mean someone cannot say "that argument is idiotic." It does not mean one cannot infer certain things about a person's argument, i.e., "you sound just like a Republican" or  "you sound angry" or "you sound like someone I would not like to see owning guns."

Grow up. You are publishing under a pseudonym on the internet and can be judged by your words. That's what it's all about, that's all there is. Even if you got respect and plaudits for what you write, it's wouldn't be about you but about your pseudonym, the words alone.

Yes, for those who were in danger of being victimized or were at the time being attacked; guns have stopped many law breakers. 

But you wouldn't know that, if your only source of information was from the many biased comments on this site, unless someone was brave enough, to take the heat, for giving you the whole truth. 

Thanks to Stand Your Ground, many more lives might be saved from the violent law breakers, who already know there are laws against what they are about to perpetrate against peaceful, law abiding people. 

What store you shop at, so they can pick you up anytime they want  in the parking lot. Your  friends ask, " Hey anybody seen Joe? He's been missing for weeks.

What? And you think you're going to shoot it out with the NSA when they've blocked you in on all sides and make it through?

Here's the thing to consider: An ordinary criminal might be deterred if he knows you have a gun. But the police and government agents, such as the ones you envision here, are prepared for violence, and they carry their own. They're prepared with guns of their own, and they've spent a lot of time training to use them in all kinds of situations. And not just at the level of weaponry, but also tactics, i.e., what to do when the target does this, does that, does the other thing.

So I'm not poo-pooing your worry about corrupt government. I do respectfully suggest, however, that carrying a gun does nothing to address this worry.

Tales of GW and his band of motley brothers fighting off tyrannical government has no relevance to today. First of all, they became an army (of sorts), and only became effective as an army and second, they would've been defeated, IMO, without France or had Britain gone for the kill early on. Or had Britain (as the US government is) been located on this continent instead of 3,000 miles and a month's journey away.

Cramer talked about childishness. Pretending we're in a situation analogous to 1776 is real childishness, IMO. Yes, many, many of our founding principles endure, along with our founders' thinking, but the reality of warfare and gunfare and fightingfare has changed radically. So radically that what was true then is no longer true. Politics is the only way to fight this fight.