Knife Control! Yep, Next After Gun Control!

[Starlight]

The word "majority" is incorrect. Your general point about Nazi popularity stands, but you exaggerated. The Nazis got huge popular votes, but never enough to take power without allying with Rightist "fellow-traveler" parties. So there always was a majority that with guns in hands could have stopped the Nazis. But no one but the Communists were taking action.
"In the July [1932] elections, the Nazis became the biggest party in the Reichstag, with 230 seats." Three other parties totaled 319...."Elections in November had reduced Nazi seats to 196". However "on 30 January 1933 Hitler became chancellor, called to office legally and constitutionally by the elected head of the Republic."
J. M. Roberts, Europe 1880/1945, 1967, p. 444, 445.

I disagree that the word 'majority' is incorrect in the context.

This is something that people from countries with a two-party political system commonly get confused about. But we have a multi-party political system here (~7 parties), similar in spirit to the German system in the 30s. After an election, almost always no one party has an outright majority, and so they negotiate with other parties to work together, until they have enough parties in agreement (usually 2-4 here) that together they have an outright majority. And then they together "form a government", called a "coalition government". There is usually a dominant party within that coalition government (ie one with significantly more seats than the other parties it's in coalition with), and it's generally accepted that that party's policies form the basic agenda of the government. So currently we have a coalition formed from the National, Act, United Future, and Maori parties, with National by far the largest party of them.

But in terms of terminology, it is correct to speak of "the National government" or say "National has a majority" (technically that phrase is short for "the coalition government, led by the National party, has a majority"). So coming up to an election the media will speculate whether National will be able to win an "outright majority" (ie govern without a coalition), or whether it will merely be able to form a "majority" (ie a coalition government), or whether the opposition will win a majority.

So, given the Nazis formed a coalition government, it's quite reasonable to talk of them winning a democratic "majority". It would be wrong to speak of them winning an "outright majority". That simply how the terminology is used in the context of multi-party systems and coalition governments.


P.S. The Washington Post and Vox both did fact-check write ups on this subject 2 months ago because Sanders said "Hitler won an election... politics is, in fact, very important." And people had different views on whether or not forming a coalition government counts as "winning" an election (it does).

[Sam]

The word "majority" is incorrect. Your general point about Nazi popularity stands, but you exaggerated. The Nazis got huge popular votes, but never enough to take power without allying with Rightest "fellow-traveler" parties. So there always was a majority that with guns in hands could have stopped the Nazis. But no one but the Communists were taking action.

That's a good correction, thanks. I intended "plurality" but did exaggerate. My apologies and my thanks.

[Adam]

Apart from that, where is this idea debated among legitimate historians? The Nazis' rise to power was largely democratic, with the party repeatedly winning a majority

The word "majority" is incorrect. Your general point about Nazi popularity stands, but you exaggerated. The Nazis got huge popular votes, but never enough to take power without allying with Rightist "fellow-traveler" parties. So there always was a majority that with guns in hands could have stopped the Nazis. But no one but the Communists were taking action.
"In the July [1932] elections, the Nazis became the biggest party in the Reichstag, with 230 seats." Three other parties totaled 319...."Elections in November had reduced Nazi seats to 196". However "on 30 January 1933 Hitler became chancellor, called to office legally and constitutionally by the elected head of the Republic."
J. M. Roberts, Europe 1880/1945, 1967, p. 444, 445.

[Starlight]

It's mostly a shell game, as the Second Amendment very arguably deals with a collective right of the people rather than an individual right (Miller settled the matter in favor of the former in the '30s, while Heller settled the matter in favor the latter in '08). Under the collective right theory, the US military was heavily dependent on state militias and at least some states were still largely wary of a more controlling federal government so a well-regulated militia was essential for both purposes.

From what I've read, it appears that it was pretty much universally understood within the legal community as granting a right to the states to operate defense forces, and prohibiting the federal government from banning them from doing so. Hence the States get to have their "well regulated militia"s.

But subsequently the idea of 'incorporation', which looks like a complete nonsense of a legal theory if ever I've seen one, took the view that the restrictions on the federal government in the constitution, ought to be also applied to State governments. That idea just plain doesn't seem to make any sense when applied to a part of the constitution that gives the State governments freedom to do something and restricts the federal government from blocking them doing it. You end up at the idea that individuals have the freedom to do the thing and the State governments can't block them doing it. And so words cease making sense because the very clause that talks about the "well regulated" militia is itself interpreted to imply a ban on anyone from actually regulating.

EGGzackly.

So what does one do with something that made sense in it's historical context, but makes no sense in the present. Should it be taken to mean the government is obliged to let its citizens be armed with nukes and with battleships, so that if push comes to shove the citizens can actually win against the government? If it is admitted that they simply can't win against the government with the current level of weaponry, then what good is the 2nd amendment? It seems to me that the only legitimate interpretations of it today are to either admit it is obsolete history and should be ignored, or requires that that citizenry be army with sufficient weaponry between them to legitimately defeat the government in an all-out war.

[Cow Poke]

An understandable sentiment given the historical context.

EGGzackly.

[Sam]

An understandable sentiment given the historical context.

However, it's turned out that (1) Western governments oppressing their people via armies is not a thing that's happened, and (2) Technological advancement means that the weapons of the people (guns) are simply not comparable to the weapons of the military (battleships, drones, bombers, missiles, nuclear weapons) and would be laughable against them. So the second amendment turned out to be a pretty bad idea. It proposes defending against an imaginary threat with a method that wouldn't work.

It's mostly a shell game, as the Second Amendment very arguably deals with a collective right of the people rather than an individual right (Miller settled the matter in favor of the former in the '30s, while Heller settled the matter in favor the latter in '08). Under the collective right theory, the US military was heavily dependent on state militias and at least some states were still largely wary of a more controlling federal government so a well-regulated militia was essential for both purposes.

I agree that as an individual right, the Second Amendment has turned out to be a poor idea. As a collective right, it's merely an anachronistic idea that served its purpose but has long since been obsoleted.

[Starlight]

Yeah, so armed with that experience, they knew they didn't want to face another government (even their own) UNarmed.

An understandable sentiment given the historical context.

However, it's turned out that (1) Western governments oppressing their people via armies is not a thing that's happened, and (2) Technological advancement means that the weapons of the people (guns) are simply not comparable to the weapons of the military (battleships, drones, bombers, missiles, nuclear weapons) and would be laughable against them. So the second amendment turned out to be a pretty bad idea. It proposes defending against an imaginary threat with a method that wouldn't work.

[Sam]

And now you rely on Media Matters, an organization that even many liberals make sure they keep at arm's length?

I don't rely on Media Matters at all; that was just the best compilation of Jim Hoft-related nonsense I found on short notice. You can look through the content and see the actual Jim Hoft links that actually make the crazy claims that Media Matters attributes to him.

CONTENT, Rogue.

[rogue06]

Yeah ... compared to Jim Hoft, Mother Jones is the freakin' New York Times. Don't go judging!

And now you rely on Media Matters, an organization that even many liberals make sure they keep at arm's length?

[rogue06]

The second amendment came into existence after the revolution.

facepalm3.gif

And from exactly what experience do you think it was based on? Sort of like the Third Amendment.

[Sam]

First saw it here and then got more from here.

Yeah ... compared to Jim Hoft, Mother Jones is the freakin' New York Times. Don't go judging!

[Cow Poke]

The second amendment came into existence after the revolution.

Yeah, so armed with that experience, they knew they didn't want to face another government (even their own) UNarmed.

[rogue06]

It's the "CNN Photoshopped Umpqua Shooter" deal.

First saw it here and then got more from here.

[Starlight]

"the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was misguided"

Tell me starlight, what exactly do you think the colonial American's chances of defeating the British would have been if they weren't armed?

The second amendment came into existence after the revolution.

[klaus54]

...

Tell me starlight, what exactly do you think the colonial American's chances of defeating the British would have been if they weren't armed?

Slim to None, and Slim done left town.