Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
Iraq under Saddam Hussein had one of the most heavily armed civilian populations in the world (I believe it was second only to the U.S. at the time). It's one of the major reasons toppling him from the inside was practically impossible. Today, Yemen holds that honour. One of the first things the U.S. did when they occupied Iraq was take their guns away.
In most parts of the world, assault weapons are seen as a tool of oppression and not freedom.
|
I had just been reading Quigley (Tragedy and Hope - great but so dense, every sentence is like whoa) and recalled this from his wiki. Not that I support it just that he offered the following which seems relevant.
Quote:
Weapons and democracy
From a historical study of weapons and political dynamics, Quigley concludes that the characteristics of weapons are the main predictor of democracy.[11][12] Democracy tends to emerge only when the best weapons available are easy for individuals to buy and use.[13] This explains why democracy occurs so rarely in human history.[14]
In the 1800s (peaking in the 1880s), guns were the best weapon available. In America, almost everyone could afford to buy a gun, and could learn how to use it fairly easily. Governments couldn't do any better: it became the age of mass armies of citizen soldiers with guns.[13] (Similarly, Periclean Greece was an age of the citizen soldier and of democracy[14]).
In the 1900s, expensive, specialist weapons (such as tanks and bombers) became available, and citizen soldiers became dominated by specialist soldiers.[15] Quigley notes that the slaughter of World War I (1914-1918) was due to the mismatch between the traditional armies (citizen soldiers) and the available weapons (machine guns used defensively).[16]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley