Because nothing's constant
No, Hitler Did Not Ban Guns - And Neither Did Mussolini, Castro, Stalin or Pol Pot...
History would have been different if the Jews had bullets instead of matzo balls. No?
No.Read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." Guns would not have made a difference; not only were the Jews vastly outnumbered, but half of them didn't even think of themselves as Jews. They were Germans.History would have been different if the Jews had the internet. Note that the destruction of the Soviet empire was accomplished via faxes, cell phones, and car keys.But guns? Guns wouldn't help them any more than they would help you if the 101st Airborne decided to invade your house.
Here's a cogent discussion from a very pro-gun site:A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the 1928 Law. Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Nor were they alone in this mode of appeasement. The defiance of "never again" is not so much a warning to potential oppressors as it is a challenge to Jews to reject the passive response to pogrom. Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Their foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance. To project backward and speculate thus is to fail to learn the lesson history has so painfully provided. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html