As we come to terms with the recent violent events that took place at our nations capitol a few weeks ago I would like to dispel a few myths about our 2^nd amendment and the "well regulated militia", mainly that it exists to prevent government tyranny and that if we wanted to, we could overthrow the US government with our guns.

The claim that the "2^nd Amendment is about resistance to government tyranny" or that if the Jews in Europe had guns the "likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished" is baseless and cannot be supported by any military historian. This view is not shared by many conservatives and gun advocates like Ben Shapiro and our former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Dr. Ben Carson.

One example is on Pierce Morgan's show Mr. Shapiro, a well know conservative talk show host, claims that because his Jewish ancestors in Europe did not have access to guns like we do in the US is the reason "they are now ashes". I want to get one thing straight here, there WERE armed Jewish resistance groups against the Nazis (see Bielski and Parczew partisans) just like how my ancestors (Native Americans) fought bravely against the US government, both instances should be admired for their bravery, but in the end, they were both heavily outnumbered, outgunned and were mainly untrained civilians fighting professional armies and the result is exactly what you would expect.

Bielski Partisans in the Nalibooki Forest Poland 1941-1944

(notice they have guns)

General Michael Zymierski (top row, center), poses with a partisan unit in the Parczew Forest 1944. (Again notice they had guns)

At the core of this argument lies two beliefs: American obsession with guns and an overconfident "if I had been there it would have been a different story" attitude.

On the issue of our country's obsession with guns I think its fine if you want to consider yourself an Ammosexual; that is a person who really likes firearms, that's fine, but don't pretend that you're doing the rest of us a favor by "protecting us from government tyranny" because there is absolutely no evidence of that ever happening.

The US government has been tyrannical many times throughout history and the 2^nd amendment did not amount to a pile of beans. The right to bear arms did nothing for African slaves who were chattel from 1789 to 1863, it did nothing for Native Americans who were either massacred or forced into reservations, and it did nothing for those who suffered under Jim Crowe for a century after the Civil War.

In fact, just three years after the Bill of Rights was ratified the 2^nd Amendment failed to protect the rights of individuals who believed their rights were being trampled. In 1794 the ink on the Bill of rights had not even dried yet and Washington led an army of 13,000 soldiers to crush a rebellion of US citizens who were protesting and refusing to pay a Whiskey tax. Fortunately for everyone involved the rebels were not foolish enough to think they could take on the massive army led by General George Washington, so they disbanded, went home, and gave up. I predict that despite all the tough talk Mr. Shapiro and Dr. Carson would also tuck tail and run home if they knew the 75^th Ranger Regiment was approaching with the goal of destroying them.

Portrait of Washington going to crush the Whiskey rebellion

Since Mr. Shapiro likes to use his ancestors as evidence for why civilians with guns can make the difference against government tyranny (even though his ancestors did have guns) I'll use mine to prove the contrary. My ancestors were experts at hit and run tactics, had guns, and were experts in the terrain they were fighting, however hard they fought they were still no match for the might of the US Army. Although both Mr. Shapiro's and my own ancestors fought bravely and their courage should be admired, we should not kid ourselves into thinking that if you had been a Jew in 1940s Germany or an Apache in the 1800s and you had a gun you would have been able to defeat the Nazi war machine or the US Army.

Photo of a mass grave dug by US troops after the Wounded Knee Massacre 1890, despite having guns Lakota men women and children were massacred by the US forces.

As it relates to armed civilians stopping the holocaust specifically, let us get one thing straight: It took the combined armies of the US, Soviet Union, and the British Empire from 1941-1945 to bring an end to the Holocaust. To put that into perspective that is a combined total of over 25 million professionally trained and equipped soldiers backed by the three largest economies on the planet and it took them four years to stop the holocaust.

According to records the population of Jews in Germany and the Saar region totaled just over half a million in 1933, keep in mind these are mostly women and children, and most of the men had no military experience or training. The idea that an untrained, outnumbered civilian force could have stopped the holocaust if they just had guns is as ridiculous, after all the French and Polish armies had plenty of guns, but they were still overpowered by the Nazi war machine. I would compare Dr. Carson's "strategy" of arming Jews to stop the holocaust just as sane as telling Native Americans that they could have taken out the US Army if they just tried harder.