The problem with this argument is that it implies Jews, and by implication other Germans, were well-armed prior to their weaponry being taken away by the Nazis.
The actual fact is that privately-owned firearms were thin on the ground in Germany long before the Nazis came to power.
The scary part is not that the Nazis immediately passes laws to disarm their opponents. It's that they used the registration laws and records passed by their democratic predecessors to do so.
“The problem with this argument is that it implies Jews, and by implication other Germans, were well-armed prior to their weaponry being taken away by the Nazis.”
What I wrote implies no such thing, although I would agree that German Jews were probably never well-armed. Some German Jews doubtless possessed some means of self-defense prior to systematic confiscation, and little or none thereafter. The Nazis’ purpose was at least threefold. They wanted to render their victims helpless; they wanted to fuel popular hysteria that the Jews were somehow dangerous and needed to be neutralized; and they wished to have a pretext for searches, arrests, persecution, and expropriation of their victims. Things Lois Lerner-types could really get into today.
Your final statement is a compelling argument that “Manny Schewitz” and his ilk should answer (that name sounds so much like a wine; is he punking us to push our buttons?).
As a side issue, statistics on “privately owned” firearms in interwar Germany seem unlikely to capture the reality of “firearms on the ground”, considering widespread access to military weapons by Freicorps, reservists, SA, various “marching units”, workers’ and communist cells, etc. I suspect the latter figured large in the Nazi’s fantasies about armed Jews.