On 4-10-2009 20:49, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> For this argument to make sense one would also need to give at least 
>> some believable arguments that armed civilians would have *prevented* 
>> Russia 1917, Germany 1933, and China 1949, to name a few.
> 
> You just have to show it happened sometimes, not every time.
> 
Actually in the majority of times would be enough to make the claim that 
on average it is better to have your civilians armed to protect the 
constitution. If we cut a few corners, in Russia and in China it was 
armed civilians that established the totalitarian regime. Germany may be 
a bit more complicated as that was a democratic 'coup'. Yet, I don't 
think anyone would argue that it would have been prevented if the 
civilians were armed.
Ok, let me think of other totalitarian regimes:
- Cuba: same as Russia and China
- Lybia: (would that count as totalitarian?)[off to wikipedia...] 
military coup. I don't know enough of the political situation at the 
time to judge if this could be a case in favor of fire arms for 
civilians. My guess would be that it would not have worked, but who knows.

How about arming the Russian civilians in the 80's or the Chinese 
peasants with guns. Would that have lead to a armed coup to install a 
democratic government? It is a hypothetical situation so you can invent 
your own answer. I'd say the idea is too improbable to even consider it 
seriously.

Anyone can think of other totalitarian regimes and if there might be a 
case to make that armed civilians would have prevented that?

Failing that, I summarize that also this argument for guns by civilians 
has been totally busted (as they say in a TV show).

Post a reply to this message