Like Ibram says, that orderliness was just the German thumbprint. Can you imagine if the Swiss had been in charge? It would have been over before any one knew it.

When Johnny Turk did the Armenians it wasn't nearly as efficient but was at least as effective. Now Turkey can hide behind UG definitions of genocide and pretend it never happened... The American genocide against the native Americans was against a small well armed effective fighting force but that was nothing against shear numbers of immigrants and economic reality.

And in none of those cases did widespread access to firearms save the eventual victims. There was admittedly often LESS access to firearms for the victims, and arguably less will to own them in some cases, but even if access to them had been better, it would only barely have slowed the sheer numbers/funding/hatred/whatever of the murderers, be they government or otherwise.

Where does the situation in Libya fit into your theory?

Being armed enabled them to hang on long enough until external help arrived.
Then again, Syria has been hanging on for months and now the Arab League is removing their monitors due to increased violence ... go figure. :/

I'm not arguing that they SHOULDN'T be armed, duh! Libya wasn't a genocide, that was a revolution - initially a peaceful one - and the situation in Syria is INTENTIONALLY non-violent on the part of the protesters. I'm not talking about a political struggle, but if i were I would be advocating gun ownership by pro-democracy movements. I'm talking about minorities under threat of genocide by overwhelmingly large majorities, and how with the clear exception of the jews in germany/german territory, gun ownership wouldn't save them. Yes, I think external powers should intervene on their behalf - something I think even the most anti-war liberal and hawkish conservative can agree on - and maybe, just maybe, they COULD hang on long enough with enough guns, but somehow the UN and US are both extremely slow to respond to stop genocides.

I'm all for widespread gun ownership, especially in the third world - but I think in safe, industrial, democratic nations, that maybe, just maybe, not everyone is qualified to operate a firearm, let alone a powerful military-grade weapon, safely and responsibly, and that maybe we better make sure, on top of existing background checks, that anyone who wants to own a firearm knows how to operate, store, clean, and otherwise safely own one.

EDIT: I guess it's fair to say I draw a distinction between the SORT of gun ownership that exists in the United States, and the reasons for it, and the sort of gun ownership and reasons for it in the sorts of situations where the institutions and organs of government (or lack thereof) are set up in a way that neglects, rather than defends, civil liberties, human rights, and the rule of law. The more authoritarian the government, or the more anarchic or libertarian the government's protection of human rights, the more important public ownership of firearms, not just handguns, shotguns, and rifles, but so-called assault weapons, or military firearms. However, in a fairly socially-libertarian country with a government that defends human rights and the rule of law, public ownership of military weapons might maybe deserve a little regulation, as the density of population and questionable risks to public safety begin to balance against the public good of safety-by-the-bullet. In the United States, I trust the U.S. Military, National Guard, FBI, Federal, State, and Local police all to protect me and every single other American from the threat of genocide or hate crime based on any one of my minority statuses - so the argument that I need an AK-47 to defend my liberty and safety is a little less valid, to me, here in the United States, as opposed to, say, in Libya, or even more importantly, China, or Myanmar, or North Korea, where wholesale government-sponsored genocide, both violent and non-violent (yes, they exist), is being perpetrated against unarmed minorities. If the Tibetans or the Uighurs or whoever were armed, would the current shit be going down? Sure as hell not. But do YOU need a machine-gun to protect YOUR freedom? No, we have a government and military and law enforcement that we CAN trust, made up of people from ALL backgrounds and ALL walks of life who ALL believe in the rule of law. So SHOULD you be able to own a machine gun? I believe you should be, IF the regulatory agency can't prove (in a court of law even? would that extra step help protect rights?) that you are a threat to others, and IF you can show though a transparent and standardized licensing process that you can safely own and operate it.

An remember in Nazi Germany the erosion of Jewish rights was so gradual at first that it didn't even occur to anyone to raise arms even if they had them. It didn't happen one night. By the time it got to the point of armed resistance it was far, far too late.

There are plenty of stories of people who believed it wasn't happening to them despite standing on the platform at the train station.

That is part of the point of the amendments.
The First amendment is to protect unpopular speech-- it helps prevent marginalizing groups.
The second amendment is another form of check and balance. If another situation were to arise in this country where let's say an election was stolen through nefarious means and the political party that came into power were to, well maybe there are better examples, but in any case, you all know what kind of low coefficient of friction slope we're talking about here.

but again - right now, I would argue, our political system, for all its shortcomings, is still governed by the rule of law, even when the laws are a little iffy. and I would further argue, there is NO chance of the U.S. military and law enforcement being used to perpetrate anything on the scale of genocide. There is enough diversity of thought and political affiliation to prevent them from becoming that sort of organization. That is very very much not true in much of the world, but it is here. I would still argue that there should be public gun ownership and that it does help ensure a free america - but it does not ensure it so singlehandedly that we can't afford to regulate gun ownership to ensure public safety, does it? I think we would almost all argue that there should be SOME sort of limit - some sort of process to keep from selling, say, felons, or schizophrenics, or minors weapons, at least - and I argue, the more dangerous the weapon, the more powerful the weapon, the more should be done not just to make sure that you're a safe person to own it, but that you can also own it safely.

I don't believe it would have happened in Switzerland despite the fact that the Swiss were as prejudiced as the Germans back in the 30's. The difference is that every male Swiss citizen between the ages of 18 and 60 is on stand-by against foreign attack. They have their army rifles (or whatever military weapon) stored in their homes at all times. Plus, they go through a period of military training every couple of years or so to keep their skills sharp. If the Swiss had attacked their Jewish population, the result would have been a civil war. Just not worth the grief.