[SideburnsOfDoom]

> Western democracy wouldn't exist without citizens who were armed to the teeth.

Citation needed. I can't think of any good examples, except maybe for the Revolutionary French "Sans-culottes", who, as the name suggests, were _famously_ well-equipped.

[black6]

Carroll Quigley makes a convincing argument early in Tragedy and Hope that democratic governments tend to replace authoritarian governments when "amateur weapons" (e.g. rifled musket and pistols of the 19th century) are the pinnacle of weapons technology and the standard of living is high enough for the citizens to readily purchase those weapons, and vice versa when "specialist weapons" (e.g. tanks and airplanes of the 20th century) become the pinnacle of weapons tech.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> when "specialist weapons" (e.g. tanks and airplanes of the 20th century) become the pinnacle of weapons tech.

I will certainly agree with that, in the sense that the idea that armed civilians (even if they have some automatic assault rifles) posing an internal threat to a modern, well equipped military; is laughable, and is likely advanced for disingenuous propaganda purposes.