When we argue against gun control, one thing many of us point out is how gun control can easily lead to oppression. The other side typically dismisses this argument. Either they play the "it can't happen here" card, which is beyond stupid for people who crap on the idea of American Exceptionalism with every breath they take, or they claim that you can't resist the United States military, which is also dumb after wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan where at some point or another, we had a problem with lightly-armed insurgents.

But make no mistake, gun control can and does lead to tyranny. 

I touched on some of that on Monday in talking about Elon Musk's comments, but I'm not the only one talking about it. 

The current election campaign has seen the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. Anti-Semitism is surging and candidates have taken to calling their opponents Nazis and so forth. That invites a look at the actual gun-control policies of the German National Socialist regime, detailed in Stephen Halbrook’s Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming Jews and “Enemies of the State.”

The Nazis used the registration records of the Weimar Republic to deny access to firearms to anyone not an adherent of National Socialism, even veteran groups such as the Stahlhelm. In the Nazi view, nobody needed a firearm for self-defense when the police protected society and sport shooting and hunting were not a “need,” as determined by the government. German Jews were a primary target.

In 1896, Albert Flatow won first place in gymnastic events at the Olympic games in Athens. In 1932, Flatow registered three handguns, as required by the Weimar Republic. On Oct. 4, 1938, the Nazis arrested Flatow for possession of the firearms he dutifully registered in 1932. His arrest report stated that “arms in the hands of Jews are a danger to public safety.”

Flatow died of starvation in Theresienstadt Concentration Camp in Dec. 1942.

Consider also the tyranny in France which Halbrook covered in Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France: Tyranny and Resistance, the first scholarly work on the subject.

Prime Minister Pierre Laval decreed the registration of firearms in 1935, focusing on firearm owners at large, not those indulging in violence. After the Nazi occupation, the French government issued a decree demanding the surrender of all firearms and radio transmitters, on penalty of death. Those failing to denounce gun owners were subject to the death penalty.

On June 10, 1944, Nazi forces surrounded the village of Oradour-sur-Glane and ordered the people to assemble in the village square. The attackers killed 245 women and 207 children, including six infants. The 196 men killed included seven Jewish refugees from other parts of France. As the late P.J. O’Rourke might say, this is what happens when the people with all the power have all the guns.

That last part is the big takeaway here. When people with all the power have all the guns, well, they really do have all the power.

It's naive to an extreme to believe that politicians will always obey the Constitution when we routinely see them disobey the Constitution.

What's more, let's think about the positions on other issues your average anti-gunner tends to hold. For example, let's say their get their wish and we are disarmed, even of just semi-automatic rifles--these "weapons of war" they want to get off our streets.

Of course, they won't be off our streets, will they?

Currently, most police cars have an AR-15 stashed away. Cops may not be breaking it out on a daily basis, but it's there, and those won't be subject to any semi-automatic ban. Pretty much every gun control law ever envisioned includes a provision that exempts law enforcement from that measure, so there's no reason to believe this will be any different.

These, of course, are the same police that your average anti-gunner spent several years claiming were inherently racist and just looking for an excuse to shoot black men and women.

How do you justify keeping guns in the hands of racist, violent extremists in law enforcement, as I've heard them described, while making it so that good, decent people have nothing to resist with?

Think about Donald Trump for a bit. Would your average anti-gunner really trust him with all of the firearms? What about the next guy who will undoubtedly become "literally Hitler" or some variation of that? 

When the government has all the guns, they really do have all the power. That means the Constitution is nothing but words on a paper.

All throughout history, disarmed populations have been subject to oppression. Those who beat their swords into plowshares end up plowing for those who didn't. The disarmed cannot truly resist those who aren't disarmed.

Our nation was founded on an inherent distrust of power in the hands of a few and while we haven't been free of oppression even here, let's also remember that those who were oppressed even within our own borders were also often the subjects of gun control regulations.

So no, we're not going to just shrug away our gun rights because you claim we couldn't successfully resist the military. Just knowing we could is enough to keep the powers that be in check. Otherwise, why work so hard to take our guns away?