Replies

What I am saying is that it could concievably happen if the situation in this nation deteriorated.

A second civil war? Presumably between the blue states and the red states (i.e., the 2000 election map breakdown by county)?

Political grievances in and of themselves would not be sufficient spark, in my opinion. The country would have to be suffering some deep systemic problem with respect to food, power, or security as well. As long as fundamental needs are met, most people are content to drift along.

This is an interesting thread - at least to a guy who collects large bore, pinned and recessed S&W wheelguns.

1. As a German interpreter who lived in Berlin, I gotta tell you that Nazi history is scary. Primarily because I do not see America as immune to the Gleichschaltung, solution-at-any-price mentality which propelled Hitler to power. Kevin C. is correct. Before we see a 21st Century replay of the death of Weimar, things are going to have to reach the level of 'some deep systemic problem.'

2. I think the source article for this thread is wide of the mark. Nazi gun control was not the necessary and sufficient condition for the 12 years of Adolph's tyranny. He had a lot of help. That is the problem.

3. What I am concerned about is the utter ignorance of the malleable middle of our electorate, which in times of great duress (not now), would welcome the dictator. The promises and propaganda would flow freely, the masses would drink deeply thereof, and those of us knowledgeable of the wisdom of our Founding Fathers...would be out in the cold. It seems utterly inconceivable now, but a latter day Bubba Rex (he was just a shoddy precursor) could turn Homeland Security (Heimatsicherheit) into a club to crush our republic.
4. The premise of some on this thread, with whom I am most sympathetic (and alongside whom I would fight), is that a few well-armed freedom-minded individuals could effect a change in the face of a political Hitlerian tsunami. I'm not sure. We should be more focused on the media than our Dillon reloaders. The Goebbels of our age (Schumer, Pelosi, Hillary Regina, Petah Jennings, et al.) are much more of a threat than an absence of firepower.

Actually I do not believe it necessary to have the states siding against the Federal government. The threat of such a war breaking out even if the government is confident it could win is enough to deter the tyrannical actions of all but a mad tyrant to be. I know teh argument can be made that all tyrants to be are mad but those in his entourage without whom he/she would be unable to come to power have too much to lose. Further, there are numerous example from American history of "masacres" and mini wars where the erstwhile victor eventually conceeded many of the points. From teh Haymarket riots and the Pullman strike to the Molly Mcguirres the American Labor movement was seen as a totally subversive group but eventually unions whatever one now thinks of them did provide an impetus for improving the lot of those who worked in factories and trades.

Now another has posited a situation where a group of people armed by the tyrant to be take DC and the tyrant to be orders the military not to be involved. Such a situation would call for an armed response to perhaps uphold a Supreme Court decision. Remember we have precedent for a President defyin the Supreme Court. It was Andrew jackson who stated "John Marshall made his decision now let him enforce it."

Further, the armed citizenry may take up ars in support of a portion of our military should the disaster happen that we face tyranny. political differnces in teh past caused teh last civil war in the USA who can state that such is an impossibility ten, twenty or thrity years down the road. Certainl one can not state with any certainty that next year or next month we will not be facing some situation where an armed citizenry must be called into play

This is not to say there are not dangers in this fact. Clearly any radical change that is supported by the majority may find that the minority takes up arms (either pro or con). However, the fact that this danger is always present serves to limit the tyranny of the majority in and of itself. the presence of an armed populace helpd maintain our rule of law because when a government destroys the rule of law then force of arms is what rules and they do not have a monopoly there.