3 ms·

The Nazis loosened gun restrictions. An armed populace doesn't prevent authoritarianism by itself. In the US, unfortunately the people who are most against dem

by smt88 4y ago

The Nazis loosened gun restrictions. An armed populace doesn't prevent authoritarianism by itself. In the US, unfortunately the people who are most against democracy are the ones with guns.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
That is not really the whole story. The Treaty of Versailles did restrict weapon ownership and the Nazis were of cause in opposition to that. But they still did not loosen gun restrictions. On the contrary they did try to disarm all their opponents. Prominent example is Albert Einstein who had to give away his gun. Of course that was mainly restricted to Jews and political opponents. The did loosen restrictions for members of their party and associated organizations who would not require a permit anymore. In a later stage they wanted to allow gun ownership for Germans for the war effort but as far as I know that was never implemented. Overall their main focus was to disarm their opponents. Later the allies again implemented a complete ban on weapon ownership until around 1950-1960.
- smt88 4y ago
  You're right, but my point was this: an armed populace is only a bulwark against authoritarianism if two things are true. 1) The arms of the populace are enough to prevent the authoritarians from maintaining power. They're guaranteed to be inferior to, say, the country's military, but they can at least be a deterrent. 2) The populace agrees on who the authoritarians are and is organized against them. Unfortunately, both are guaranteed to be missing in the US. The military is drastically more powerful and dangerous than even a million armed civilians, and the populace certainly doesn't agree on who the authoritarians are. The most likely scenario for the end of US democracy is that a Democrat will win in 2024 and there will be a violent uprising from the right, just as there have been many practice runs and right-wing terrorist attacks in recent years.
  - h2odragon 4y ago
    The Us Military certainly showed its ability to enforce unpopular mandates on a restive population in Afghanistan...
    - jleyank 4y ago
      That’s true. But is it relevant? Will the US-ians in revolt want to live like Afghans for 20+ years?
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    The US military has far more advanced equipment for war and more powerful weapons but that calculation is irrelevant. I would guess that even most of the military would immediately defect if they ever got an order from Washington to shoot their own citizens. There would be some that would follow through of course. But I don't think they have any chance against the civil population, their logistics would almost immediately deteriorate and it would be a quick decisive loss within days. Much faster when large parts of the civil population is indeed armed and also supported by the part of the military that joins them. Authoritarianism is successful when it can overwhelm and remove all opposition. That is very likely not the case in the US, conflicted as it may currently be (I am not from the US). But true that the largest weakness would probably be that the populace has different opinions about who should win here.

by smt88 4y ago

The Nazis loosened gun restrictions. An armed populace doesn't prevent authoritarianism by itself. In the US, unfortunately the people who are most against democracy are the ones with guns.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

That is not really the whole story. The Treaty of Versailles did restrict weapon ownership and the Nazis were of cause in opposition to that. But they still did not loosen gun restrictions. On the contrary they did try to disarm all their opponents. Prominent example is Albert Einstein who had to give away his gun. Of course that was mainly restricted to Jews and political opponents. The did loosen restrictions for members of their party and associated organizations who would not require a permit anymore. In a later stage they wanted to allow gun ownership for Germans for the war effort but as far as I know that was never implemented. Overall their main focus was to disarm their opponents. Later the allies again implemented a complete ban on weapon ownership until around 1950-1960.

smt88 4y ago
You're right, but my point was this: an armed populace is only a bulwark against authoritarianism if two things are true. 1) The arms of the populace are enough to prevent the authoritarians from maintaining power. They're guaranteed to be inferior to, say, the country's military, but they can at least be a deterrent. 2) The populace agrees on who the authoritarians are and is organized against them. Unfortunately, both are guaranteed to be missing in the US. The military is drastically more powerful and dangerous than even a million armed civilians, and the populace certainly doesn't agree on who the authoritarians are. The most likely scenario for the end of US democracy is that a Democrat will win in 2024 and there will be a violent uprising from the right, just as there have been many practice runs and right-wing terrorist attacks in recent years.
- h2odragon 4y ago
  The Us Military certainly showed its ability to enforce unpopular mandates on a restive population in Afghanistan...
  - jleyank 4y ago
    That’s true. But is it relevant? Will the US-ians in revolt want to live like Afghans for 20+ years?
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  The US military has far more advanced equipment for war and more powerful weapons but that calculation is irrelevant. I would guess that even most of the military would immediately defect if they ever got an order from Washington to shoot their own citizens. There would be some that would follow through of course. But I don't think they have any chance against the civil population, their logistics would almost immediately deteriorate and it would be a quick decisive loss within days. Much faster when large parts of the civil population is indeed armed and also supported by the part of the military that joins them. Authoritarianism is successful when it can overwhelm and remove all opposition. That is very likely not the case in the US, conflicted as it may currently be (I am not from the US). But true that the largest weakness would probably be that the populace has different opinions about who should win here.