You're not here to make friends, you're not here to argue or work out. You come here for reinforcement of your worldview?
Then you'll be interested to know, getting back on topic, that Hitler actually relaxed and expanded gun ownership! "So did Hitler and the Nazis really take away Germans' guns, making the Holocaust unavoidable? This argument is superficially true at best, as University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explained in a 2004 paper (PDF) on Nazi Germany's impact on the American culture wars. As World War I drew to a close, the new Weimar Republic government banned nearly all private gun ownership to comply with the Treaty of Versailles and mandated that all guns and ammunition "be surrendered immediately." The law was loosened in 1928, and gun permits were granted to citizens "of undoubted reliability" (in the law's words) but not "persons who are itinerant like Gypsies." In 1938, under Nazi rule, gun laws became significantly more relaxed. Rifle and shotgun possession were deregulated, and gun access for hunters, Nazi Party members, and government officials was expanded. The legal age to own a gun was lowered. Jews, however, were prohibited from owning firearms and other dangerous weapons. "But guns didn't play a particularly important part in any event," says Robert Spitzer, who chairs SUNY-Cortland's political science department and has extensively researched gun control politics. Gun ownership in Germany after World War I, even among Nazi Party members, was never widespread enough for a serious civilian resistance to the Nazis to have been anything more than a Tarantino revenge fantasy. If Jews had been better armed, Spitzer says, it would only have hastened their demise. Gun policy "wasn't the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights, and they were a minority group." On the NRA, Adolph Hitler, Gun Registration, and Nazi Gun Laws
Federal judge rules that California's 10-day waiting period for people who already own guns is unconstitutional, does not pass "either intermediate or strict scrutiny" http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/09/5986084/federal-judge-says-california.html
Which only serves to prove our point that an unarmed citizenry is subject to being ruled by it's government.
I think some here consider a simple background check as gun control, which it isn't. Gun control is a generic term and without specific definitions doesn't' mean much.
Actually it is. By definition anything that CONTROLS who does or does not get a gun is gun control. Then how do you know a background check isn't gun control?
You didn't understand the point lucrum. The argument over gun control or as I think it should be stated arms control without specific details is meaningless.