Killing Spree in AL

[vlad321]

mrstickball said:

vlad321 said:

I will ask you again, does the US, or any other country in this category, count itself as part of the West suffer from the possibility of such a regime? Or even more interestingly, if such a thing were to happen, are you telling me you, our buddies,  and your handguns would be able to deter the army?

Yes, I think the West can easily suffer from an authoritarian regime if we allow ourselves to dive into such. In any Democracy, we allow ourselves to vote on our next leader. If the leader is bad, and has bad motives behind their candidacy as leader, things can happen. What about Chavez? Putin? Both were democratically elected, but have projected their powers into a far different sphere. Yes, in typical Western countries it would be difficult, but not impossible. Hitler did it, after all, and caused 100 million deaths. I tend to think that the 12,000 deaths due to handguns in the US per year is a small price to pay to prevent the atrocities committed by horrible regimes.

And yes, having an armed militia could deterr even a great army such as the US Army, or any others. Just look at Iraq for proof. The uprising there has hampered military efforts in the region thanks to a few ten thousand insurgents. If such a regime took place in the US, the insurgency would be in the millions, if not tens of millions. When you have numbers like that on your side, it would be very difficult for any army, no matter how competent, to wage a guerilla style war against an insurgent force 10-20x your armies size.

 

Here are the problems I see with yoru argument:

You can't to even begin to compare Germany post-WWI government with current government systems, so don't even bother bringing in Hitler. Also as I remember Hitler had huge public support, the deaths were not because he was killing or oppressing HIS country. Basically, that whole argument is pointless.

If for some reason a president comes in, and he does take such a control as to begin a regime to the point where he has to start killing off the populance to keep them quiet, do you really think it will be the same as Iraq? First off the people in the army would have to be fine with it, or it would ever happen. Second, that means he wouldn't give a fuck if he killes civillians, children, women, whatever. He'd just bomb the entire neighbourhood and be done with it, you wouldn't even get to use your guns. In Iraq the army is trying to minimize the entire collateral. A regime you describe jsut won't give a fuck who they kill as they shut you up and make an example to anyone else who would think to do the same.