Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Having just finished reading of the atrocities/horrors under Mao, the Japanese, as well as Pol Pot, and others, how many of these sadistic historical leaders might never have made history books had the citizenry been better armed?
As I try to wade through the horrors of these readings, I stop myself a number of times, thinking this question.
It's hard to imagine some sadistic leader arising in Switzerland or even the U.S., with a better armed citizenry.
Would any of these leaders have still seized power, even with guns pointed at them?
What do you think?
It's not just a matter of being armed or not being armed. It's a matter of the basic ideology of the population. The difference between the Swiss and the Cambodeans or the Chinese is not simply the distribution of firearms, it's a matter of how the citizens view their own role in managing and supporting their respectivce governments.
And I'd also point out that--as a reflection of the ideology of the populace--that the Swiss are armed by their own government, not as a personal defense against that same government, but rather as an element of the national defense. The fact that Switzerland has for centuries been easily defensible terrain by small arms is also a factor in their view of government and national defense.
It should not be overlooked, as well, that the American view of small arms ownership was shaped by the coincidence that small, personally owned firearms became practical at just the time that America was a new, frontier territory. America "grew up" with a gun in its hand, so to speak.
OTOH, Europe was already fully "tamed" and fully "owned" by the time small firearms became practical, with Switzerland and places like Finland being exceptions to the rule of "government does it best" only because of their physical circumstances.
The police and military didn't do much to help the Jews in Germany back in the mid twentieth century.
I was speaking of the US.
BTW...I do not know the answer to this, but did it occur to you to check and see whether or not Nazi Germany had laws banning private ownership of guns? I mean, if the argument is that guns need to be legal to prevent things like the Holocaust, but it turns out that there wasn't anything barring the German Jews from owning guns, the argument becomes self defeating, doesn't it?
I don't know how this fits into the direction of the topic but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
I'll draw a parallel from the civil rights struggle of the past 75 years. Physical violence seldom broke out, but the potential for it (on either side) demonstrated the degree of resolve; in the process, cooler heads and the "rule of reason" prevailed.
Violence seldom broke out?!?!? Which Civil Rights movement are you talking about, not the one that I lived through. There was the civil rights movement of King, which had plenty of violence visited upon it. There was the Civil Rights movement lead by the Student Non-violent Coordinating Movement... whole lot of violence there. And then there was the civil rights movement of urban insurrection, Harlem 1935, 1943, 1964. Watts There was Watts 1964, and too many to list in 1968. Riots that change King from communist radical to exalted peace maker. And let us not forget The Black Panther Party.
Quote:
But as demonstrated over the past century, it was the minorities within "civilized" Europe -- the Jews, to cite only the ugliest example -- who submitted to authority and were systematically persecuted and exterminated.
Submitted to authority?!? Let's just say that is a over simplification.
Having just finished reading of the atrocities/horrors under Mao, the Japanese, as well as Pol Pot, and others, how many of these sadistic historical leaders might never have made history books had the citizenry been better armed?
As I try to wade through the horrors of these readings, I stop myself a number of times, thinking this question.
It's hard to imagine some sadistic leader arising in Switzerland or even the U.S., with a better armed citizenry.
Would any of these leaders have still seized power, even with guns pointed at them?
What do you think?
The idea of the professional military only goes back a few hundreds years. Before that a leader relied on militia of citizen volenteers. Now one has to remember the concept of a citizen was different back then and most people in a nation were not citizens with a say in what the nation did. The were more like property. Before Rome ended up in a permennent state of emergency (i.e. the burdens of Empire), the Roman ideal was Cincinatus who was the landed gentry (farmer) who took up his sward, or spear and shield and formed the Legions whenever Rome was threatened. This was the duty of a Roman Patrician or nobility which had the wealth and could not only outfit themselves with the best arms and armour but could hire plebians to fill the legions they commanded. After the problem had been taken care of, Cincinatus put his weapons away, disbanded the legions and returned to his fields and vinyards until the next crisis. I think George Washington who was schooled in the clasics like the 18th Landed gentry of his day believed that America should emulate the classic Roman example and follow Cincinatus' example which George did after the 13 Colonies had ended the struggle with the British Crown. The Roman citizen soldier unfortunately gave us some of histories great dictators like Sulla, Marius, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Vespasian, Trajan, etc.
with Switzerland and places like Finland being exceptions to the rule of "government does it best" only because of their physical circumstances.
Huh??!??! Really???
The Swiss Army isn't some civilian hodgepodge of chocolate consuming minute männer or hommes minute depending on where one is standing, the "citizen army" is essentially an army of conscripts who act as reservist from 18 to 50. These soldiers don't answer to some local authority but rather the federal government. It ain't a militia. Finland is just a variation on the theme with a full time professional officer corps leading citizens who are required to serve in the governments army.
I don't know how this fits into the direction of the topic but...
Violence seldom broke out?!?!? Which Civil Rights movement are you talking about, not the one that I lived through. There was the civil rights movement of King, which had plenty of violence visited upon it. There was the Civil Rights movement lead by the Student Non-violent Coordinating Movement... whole lot of violence there. And then there was the civil rights movement of urban insurrection, Harlem 1935, 1943, 1964. Watts There was Watts 1964, and too many to list in 1968. Riots that change King from communist radical to exalted peace maker. And let us not forget The Black Panther Party.
People forget that a lot of gun control laws were signed into place as a result of the Black Panther party arming themselves. Ronald Reagan as Republican governor of California signed the Mulford Act in 1967 which banned the carrying of loaded firearms in public in specific response to the Panther's carrying firearms. And the NRA supported it at the time--the whole "we need our guns to prevent tyranny" meme got forgotten when it was blacks arming themselves.
The idea of the professional military only goes back a few hundreds years. Before that a leader relied on militia of citizen volenteers. Now one has to remember the concept of a citizen was different back then and most people in a nation were not citizens with a say in what the nation did. The were more like property.
That is generally true for feudal Europe, but the Imperial Roman Army was indeed a professional standing army with terms of service lasting 20 years.
BTW...I do not know the answer to this, but did it occur to you to check and see whether or not Nazi Germany had laws banning private ownership of guns? I mean, if the argument is that guns need to be legal to prevent things like the Holocaust, but it turns out that there wasn't anything barring the German Jews from owning guns, the argument becomes self defeating, doesn't it?
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." But under the new law:
Jews were prohibited from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. They were also forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition
One seems to be under the belief that Jews were the only Germans to have a reason to oppose the Nazis. As I have mentioned before, the Rotfrontkämpferbund (Red Front Fighters' League), Young Antifascist Guard, the Fighting League Against Fascism, the Anti-Fascist Action Group and the the Red Army of Ruhr were armed paramilitary groups opposed to the Nazis and fought pitched street battles with the Nazis and their offshoots, until they like the Jews came under Nazi control in 1939.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.