[Calpernia]

Yes, I used the term invaded. I didn't premise the difference between an armed invasion vs. a passive.

An invasion is an invasion.

[Politicalities]

Yes, I used the term invaded. I didn't premise the difference between an armed invasion vs. a passive.

Really. So you think there is no difference between a foreign army invading and occupying territory and then kicking in the doors of the citizenry, and an existing government doing the same? You don't think they would pose different logistical challenges, maybe?

Analogies are always fraught with peril, and the further apart the two situations, the more perilous the analogy. Here are the four different situations you compare:

1. Nazi soldiers occupy the Sudetenland under international agreement. No shots fired.
2. Nazi soldiers occupy the rest of Czechoslovakia, this time without a permission slip from the French.
3. Nazi soldiers march into Warsaw after a brutal and bloody invasion.
4. The American government goes totalitarian.

How can you think that all of these situations would have the same outcome? How can you even compare #4 to the rest? Here are some of the more glaring differences:

• There are a lot more American gun owners, both in absolute numbers and percentage of the population, than there were Czech or Polish gun owners.
• Americans are neither Czechs nor Poles. "From my cold dead hands" wasn't invented in Europe.
• There's just not enough room or transportation to take away over 100 million American gun owners in the middle of the night.

I hate to say this, but you verge on paranoia. American gun owners will never be "disappeared" in the middle of the night. I don't believe this because I trust the government, but because I trust Americans and I especially trust American gun owners.