Replies

"One assumes that such comparison is somehow meant to justify a complete, unregulated right to keep and bear any arms the citizen wants, no matter the type, or the mental, age, or legal status. It is further assumed by such statements, that the purpose is to ensure that a Nazi like government can be effectively opposed by means of force of arms, which is ludicrous at best."

No one is saying this. We are saying that NYC, and other areas, have gone far beyond the divide between reasonable and tyranny.
As to your last claim, should we oppose a "Nazi like government" only with sharp sticks and rhetoric? Should we just surrender, cower and whimper?
Bring your own white flag, I won't be needing one.

The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Judge Alex Kozinsky

No one is saying this. We are saying that NYC, and other areas, have gone far beyond the divide between reasonable and tyranny.

Well therein lies the rub. Once you admit that the state has some power to a reasonable interpretation of the 2d Amendment, who defines that limit?

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. Judge Alex Kozinsky

Since you agree that reasonable limitations exist (though I've not heard what that means), then do you seriously think that you are keeping "reasonable" arms to take on the US government when it has become a dictatorship?

You can try and make these Nazi type comparisons all you want, but it is pretty meaningless, given the freedoms we possess and the government structure together with its balance of powers.

Most of the RKBA crowd believes in an unfettered 2d Amendment which "guarantees" them weapons of all type and for all people. They can never seem to get together however, on exactly when they would presume to launch an attack on the tyrant US, or who would make those decisions, and who would be in charge. Guess it would just be "every man for himself".